Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters still make next year the favourite for TMay to stand d

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited April 23 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters still make next year the favourite for TMay to stand down

Betdata.io

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,296
    First.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,940
    Second!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,556
    Toid.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    edited April 23
    I wholeheartedly applaud Lammy’s and Soubry’s statements.

    Edit:

    Why say this? You know the opposition and the media are going to use this as a stick to beat the government with if this isn’t the case....
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,499
    She should step down in late 2020 for her successor to come in mid 2021.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,499

    I wholeheartedly applaud Lammy’s and Soubry’s statements.

    Edit:


    Why say this? You know the opposition and the media are going to use this as a stick to beat the government with if this isn’t the case....

    They say it applies to "even those without documents". What is to stop anyone claiming to be a Windrush child then?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,471
    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,601
    Elliot said:

    I wholeheartedly applaud Lammy’s and Soubry’s statements.

    Edit:


    Why say this? You know the opposition and the media are going to use this as a stick to beat the government with if this isn’t the case....

    They say it applies to "even those without documents". What is to stop anyone claiming to be a Windrush child then?
    They'd have to be 50+ years old and with a compelling ability to lie, at the minimum. I think only illegal migrants from elsewhere in the English speaking world at a similar sort of time would be in a position to exploit the system and they will be very few in number.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    edited April 23
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,230


    Is this what 'old fashioned' immigration officers used to do?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,622



    Is this what 'old fashioned' immigration officers used to do?

    Yup, otherwise known as empowering your people to make decisions - something that’s somewhat missing from modern tickbox bureaucracy.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,230
    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,981
    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    Now newly deselected I believe...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,592
    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this

    Also the treatment to the Windrush group was evidenced by Rudd back to 2005 and under various labour home secretaries
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    edited April 23

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,040

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Howabout this new division of the EU into 28 equal sized populated states? Would we stay in?

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,622

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    Now newly deselected I believe...
    But just like buses, there will be another one (or two) along in a minute..

    https://order-order.com/2018/04/23/two-more-labour-candidates-blasted-illegal-sexuality-women-and-jewish-money/

    Guido’s clearly enjoying this, and it’s not going to go away until Labour take a long hard look at those who are standing in their name. Something they show no intention of doing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,630

    Elliot said:

    I wholeheartedly applaud Lammy’s and Soubry’s statements.

    Edit:


    Why say this? You know the opposition and the media are going to use this as a stick to beat the government with if this isn’t the case....

    They say it applies to "even those without documents". What is to stop anyone claiming to be a Windrush child then?
    They'd have to be 50+ years old and with a compelling ability to lie, at the minimum. I think only illegal migrants from elsewhere in the English speaking world at a similar sort of time would be in a position to exploit the system and they will be very few in number.
    I think they'd also have to be plausibly Afro-Carribbean.

  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 595
    Local elections anecdote KLAXON! Walking down the main road of my ward which resides in Ealing Council I saw a massive number of sign boards. There must of been a gargantuan total of 5 or even 6 of them in total (which is a lot for a local election ). I think this is more then the number Ge 2017.

    The ward has a longstanding large British Asian population and a large Polish population as well. The ward elected 3 Tory Cllrs in 2006 but those days are long gone.

    That 1968 London map will be reversed in London.......
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,202
    Foxy said:

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Howabout this new division of the EU into 28 equal sized populated states? Would we stay in?

    I remain astonished that there are as many as 18 million people in Carpathia.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,040
    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    I wholeheartedly applaud Lammy’s and Soubry’s statements.

    Edit:


    Why say this? You know the opposition and the media are going to use this as a stick to beat the government with if this isn’t the case....

    They say it applies to "even those without documents". What is to stop anyone claiming to be a Windrush child then?
    They'd have to be 50+ years old and with a compelling ability to lie, at the minimum. I think only illegal migrants from elsewhere in the English speaking world at a similar sort of time would be in a position to exploit the system and they will be very few in number.
    I think they'd also have to be plausibly Afro-Carribbean.

    Not always, until 1962, the rules applied to all Commonwealth migrants. Mygrandparents arrived without passports from the Empire in 1932. A generation later and my Dad could have been in the frame.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,592

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    Foxy said:

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Howabout this new division of the EU into 28 equal sized populated states? Would we stay in?

    LOL at that state ‘Anglo-Merica’. I’m just outside London (Watford) so I’d be in New Saxony. Looks like ‘we’ from that map would be split up in several countries.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 910

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    Nonsense.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,793
    Foxy said:

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Howabout this new division of the EU into 28 equal sized populated states? Would we stay in?

    I've always liked that map, and variants like it, though I seem to recall some question the population distributions?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,401
    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    From the Telegraph article. Made me laugh out loud. A candidate with issues.....

    '......she is banned from bringing court actions without a judge's permission after false and vexatious claims against MI5, MI6, the Metropolitan police, the army, Thames Water, her gas, electricity and broadband suppliers, Royal Mail, Hackney council, her GP and the freeholder of her flat'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,793

    Foxy said:

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Howabout this new division of the EU into 28 equal sized populated states? Would we stay in?

    LOL at that state ‘Anglo-Merica’. I’m just outside London (Watford) so I’d be in New Saxony. Looks like ‘we’ from that map would be split up in several countries.
    Happens on a smaller scale whenever you have to start dividing things into relatively precise units i Guess - the Celtic Union is a creative one.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    edited April 23

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,192
    Roger said:

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    From the Telegraph article. Made me laugh out loud. A candidate with issues.....

    '......she is banned from bringing court actions without a judge's permission after false and vexatious claims against MI5, MI6, the Metropolitan police, the army, Thames Water, her gas, electricity and broadband suppliers, Royal Mail, Hackney council, her GP and the freeholder of her flat'.
    "Freeholder of her flat" lol.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,230
    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    Now newly deselected I believe...
    But just like buses, there will be another one (or two) along in a minute..

    https://order-order.com/2018/04/23/two-more-labour-candidates-blasted-illegal-sexuality-women-and-jewish-money/

    Guido’s clearly enjoying this, and it’s not going to go away until Labour take a long hard look at those who are standing in their name. Something they show no intention of doing.
    The reasons are explained by Stephen Bush:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/04/selection-mandy-richards-exposes-longterm-problem-how-labour-vets
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,981
    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    Now newly deselected I believe...
    But just like buses, there will be another one (or two) along in a minute..

    https://order-order.com/2018/04/23/two-more-labour-candidates-blasted-illegal-sexuality-women-and-jewish-money/

    Guido’s clearly enjoying this, and it’s not going to go away until Labour take a long hard look at those who are standing in their name. Something they show no intention of doing.
    Anybody would think they have a leader that has been emboldening the conspiracy theory Jew hating nutters with his actions.....just like Trump emboldened the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the US.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,601
    Roger said:

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    From the Telegraph article. Made me laugh out loud. A candidate with issues.....

    '......she is banned from bringing court actions without a judge's permission after false and vexatious claims against MI5, MI6, the Metropolitan police, the army, Thames Water, her gas, electricity and broadband suppliers, Royal Mail, Hackney council, her GP and the freeholder of her flat'.
    She is straight up extremely paranoid. The charge against all of them was the same: that they were colluding to monitor her.

    She also made some claims that various hospitals were "in on it" and in one case gave her a contraceptive implant without her consent. That claim will be assessed on its merits, after one letter did mention an implant - probably mistakenly.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,592

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,981
    edited April 23

    Roger said:

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    From the Telegraph article. Made me laugh out loud. A candidate with issues.....

    '......she is banned from bringing court actions without a judge's permission after false and vexatious claims against MI5, MI6, the Metropolitan police, the army, Thames Water, her gas, electricity and broadband suppliers, Royal Mail, Hackney council, her GP and the freeholder of her flat'.
    She is straight up extremely paranoid. The charge against all of them was the same: that they were colluding to monitor her.

    She also made some claims that various hospitals were "in on it" and in one case gave her a contraceptive implant without her consent. That claim will be assessed on its merits, after one letter did mention an implant - probably mistakenly.
    She sounds an absolutely perfect candidate.....you wonder how the Labour party missed this stuff, it isn't even like Jared O'Sexist stuff that was said under a pseudonym on a niche web forum. It is friggin legal stuff on the record.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,230

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    Now newly deselected I believe...
    But just like buses, there will be another one (or two) along in a minute..

    https://order-order.com/2018/04/23/two-more-labour-candidates-blasted-illegal-sexuality-women-and-jewish-money/

    Guido’s clearly enjoying this, and it’s not going to go away until Labour take a long hard look at those who are standing in their name. Something they show no intention of doing.
    Anybody would think they have a leader that has been emboldening the conspiracy theory Jew hating nutters with his actions.....just like Trump emboldened the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the US.
    Can't disagree with the general sentiment, but in the Richards case:

    "longlisted candidate in Hornsey and Wood Green in 2013"

    (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/04/selection-mandy-richards-exposes-longterm-problem-how-labour-vets)

  • surbysurby Posts: 728

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Many would not admit it; hiding behind the word "control".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,164

    Foxy said:

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Howabout this new division of the EU into 28 equal sized populated states? Would we stay in?

    LOL at that state ‘Anglo-Merica’. I’m just outside London (Watford) so I’d be in New Saxony. Looks like ‘we’ from that map would be split up in several countries.
    Devon lumped in the Celtic Union with Cornwall is a recipe for civil war. They can't even agree on jam or cream first on the scone....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,230

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Arguably, a rather different form of Labour party...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,793
    On maps, int the Atlas of Prejudice Vol 1, released in 2013, it includes a predicted 'Euope in 2022' map, starring the 'Passive Aggresive Kingdom' (with an independent 'Kilt Republic' to the North, the 'Merkelreich' encompassing France, Germany, Austria and Northern Italy, the 'European Union' being a separate thing covering everything from Germany to Russia, minus the Czech and the Hungarian Empire (''it will be transformed into an empire with Viktor Orban as its first emperor. His daughter will probably marry Prince Harry'), and a 'Catalan Empire', among other such options,
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,164

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    Why is a LibDem claiming the "hostile environment" took place during the Coalition?

    Have they got a death wish as a party?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,793

    Foxy said:

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Howabout this new division of the EU into 28 equal sized populated states? Would we stay in?

    LOL at that state ‘Anglo-Merica’. I’m just outside London (Watford) so I’d be in New Saxony. Looks like ‘we’ from that map would be split up in several countries.
    Devon lumped in the Celtic Union with Cornwall is a recipe for civil war. They can't even agree on jam or cream first on the scone....
    And of course, we should back them all the way - jam first a la Cornwall? Barbarians.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    Ms Thornberry said that the creation of a “hostile environment” policy could have affected the way that Home Office officials approach their work. But she was forced to concede that the term had first been used by Labour Home Secretaty Alan Johnson in a 2010 speech.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,793

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    Accor
    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    Ms Thornberry said that the creation of a “hostile environment” policy could have affected the way that Home Office officials approach their work. But she was forced to concede that the term had first been used by Labour Home Secretaty Alan Johnson in a 2010 speech.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal
    So they intended to do it, hence ratcheting up of language, but as they were out of office they never got the chance? Not quite as robust a defence as she perhaps thinks, even if the government of the past 8 years obviously and rightly bears the brunt.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,601



    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this

    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    Ms Thornberry said that the creation of a “hostile environment” policy could have affected the way that Home Office officials approach their work. But she was forced to concede that the term had first been used by Labour Home Secretaty Alan Johnson in a 2010 speech.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal
    So if I did a quick google for home office statements from 2004 (one wave of anti-illegal immigrant laws) and again in 2006-7 I'm not going to find anything about making things difficult? Come on.

    It is all a question of fact and degree. The Tories went further.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    Why is a LibDem claiming the "hostile environment" took place during the Coalition?

    Have they got a death wish as a party?
    They know they’ve reached their floor. MacKenzie et al also believe that it makes them look like a moderating influence (see the overall thread as it’s a series of tweets she’s done on the matter). Obviously for a lot of people on the Left it’s going to make them look even worse.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,256
    Foxy said:

    Maybe because he's reading Matthew Goodwin's on-going analysis:

    e.g.
    Isn’t that just basic facts? We’ve know for a long time now Leavers care about immigration and that it was a major factor in the vote to Leave.
    Howabout this new division of the EU into 28 equal sized populated states? Would we stay in?

    That is delightfully bonkers.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,601
    edited April 23
    Oh wow, that was easy:



    A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
    The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.

    He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.

    "constrained and uncomfortable" but not "hostile" apparently...!!!!!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,622

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    Now newly deselected I believe...
    But just like buses, there will be another one (or two) along in a minute..

    https://order-order.com/2018/04/23/two-more-labour-candidates-blasted-illegal-sexuality-women-and-jewish-money/

    Guido’s clearly enjoying this, and it’s not going to go away until Labour take a long hard look at those who are standing in their name. Something they show no intention of doing.
    The reasons are explained by Stephen Bush:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/04/selection-mandy-richards-exposes-longterm-problem-how-labour-vets
    That’s quite damning.

    If there’s so much mistrust about the vetting process then they need to bring in external vettors to write a report on each candidate. It would have taken two minutes of internet research to see that this woman was a vexatious litigant with a massively over-active imagination, and completely unsuitable to stand for Parliament in a target seat.

    There’s now a number of journalists all over the story, which ironically might help the party get the worst candidates removed well in advance of the next general election.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,040

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal

    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    Ms Thornberry said that the creation of a “hostile environment” policy could have affected the way that Home Office officials approach their work. But she was forced to concede that the term had first been used by Labour Home Secretaty Alan Johnson in a 2010 speech.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal
    I think that the rules used to stop benefits, deny healthcare, remove driving licences and cause loss of employment come from the 2012 Immigration Act. The LDs manages to get schools excluded, but couldn't water it down further with May at the Home Office. While the attitude has been around longer, the mechanism to inflict this cruelty on legal British residents was new.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    kle4 said:

    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this
    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    Accor
    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    Ms Thornberry said that the creation of a “hostile environment” policy could have affected the way that Home Office officials approach their work. But she was forced to concede that the term had first been used by Labour Home Secretaty Alan Johnson in a 2010 speech.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal
    So they intended to do it, hence ratcheting up of language, but as they were out of office they never got the chance? Not quite as robust a defence as she perhaps thinks, even if the government of the past 8 years obviously and rightly bears the brunt.
    A lot of politicians adopt the tough on immigration rhetoric (which is hardly helpful, either) but then don’t follow through on the matter.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,164
    edited April 23

    Oh wow, that was easy:



    A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
    The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.

    He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.

    "constrained and uncomfortable" but not "hostile" apparently...!!!!!

    I wonder what the views of Blunkett would have been if he'd been the Home Secretary at that point....?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime1
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,401
    Amazing story from Martin Lewis. Looks like copyright is dead. Not great for the advertising industry.

    Or maybe it is?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,040



    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this

    We’ll see how many votes they lose, but this Windrush scandal has shown many in politics that making sure something like this never happens again is more important than being seen to be ‘tough on immigration.’ I personally don’t see what you’re seeing - I think it’s more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal
    So if I did a quick google for home office statements from 2004 (one wave of anti-illegal immigrant laws) and again in 2006-7 I'm not going to find anything about making things difficult? Come on.

    It is all a question of fact and degree. The Tories went further.
    The other difference was that the Tories pursued not known illegals, but rather people with legal right to reside, but undocumented.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,164
    edited April 23


    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    Ms Thornberry said that the creation of a “hostile environment” policy could have affected the way that Home Office officials approach their work. But she was forced to concede that the term had first been used by Labour Home Secretaty Alan Johnson in a 2010 speech.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal

    So Labour talked the talk, but couldn't be accused of walking the walk?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281



    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this

    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    Ms Thornberry said that the creation of a “hostile environment” policy could have affected the way that Home Office officials approach their work. But she was forced to concede that the term had first been used by Labour Home Secretaty Alan Johnson in a 2010 speech.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal
    So if I did a quick google for home office statements from 2004 (one wave of anti-illegal immigrant laws) and again in 2006-7 I'm not going to find anything about making things difficult? Come on.

    It is all a question of fact and degree. The Tories went further.
    Would it be the exact same as the policy adopted by the Tories, which is what I think Thornberry refers to when she says ‘the culture’? Given you yourself say the Tories ‘went further’, it looks like it wouldn’t.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,943
    edited April 23

    Oh wow, that was easy:



    A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
    The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.

    He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.

    "constrained and uncomfortable" but not "hostile" apparently...!!!!!

    I wonder what the views of Blunkett would have been if he'd been the Home Secretary at that point....?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime1
    Blunkett Reid Johnson you mean the moderates

    Thankfully never again will people like that get near power under Corbyn
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,793
    edited April 23


    A lot of politicians adopt the tough on immigration rhetoric (which is hardly helpful, either) but then don’t follow through on the matter.

    Perhaps so (and I do think actions are more important than words, the the faux outrage over Cameron using the word 'swarming' comes to mind, since the anger at the word eclipsed what the issue was supposedly about), and as I said the government has been in office awhile now and bears responsibility for matters, but if you are going to decry hostility, it's not a good look when you appeared to want to be just as hostile, but an election got in the way. And if the defence is 'Well we didn't mean what we said', that's not a great look either.

    The government still looks worse, but Labour would be well advised not to lay it on so thick, since I very much doubt some very senior people did not say things that have the appearance of the same attitude as the government now. There isn't a need to overplay things, this scandal is damaging the government with very little effort needed from labour.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,040
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    This is Labour's newly-selected candidate for Worcester:

    "Labour candidate under 14 civil restraint orders said Jo Cox death 'bereft of evidence'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/labour-candidate-said-jo-cox-death-bereft-evidence-posted-conspiracy/

    Now newly deselected I believe...
    But just like buses, there will be another one (or two) along in a minute..

    https://order-order.com/2018/04/23/two-more-labour-candidates-blasted-illegal-sexuality-women-and-jewish-money/

    Guido’s clearly enjoying this, and it’s not going to go away until Labour take a long hard look at those who are standing in their name. Something they show no intention of doing.
    The reasons are explained by Stephen Bush:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/04/selection-mandy-richards-exposes-longterm-problem-how-labour-vets
    That’s quite damning.

    If there’s so much mistrust about the vetting process then they need to bring in external vettors to write a report on each candidate. It would have taken two minutes of internet research to see that this woman was a vexatious litigant with a massively over-active imagination, and completely unsuitable to stand for Parliament in a target seat.

    There’s now a number of journalists all over the story, which ironically might help the party get the worst candidates removed well in advance of the next general election.
    I think that the same mistrust is why the investigations of suspected anti-semitism are so prolonged. The hard left is quite suspicious of expulsions and suspensions as a way of centrists controlling the party, as indeed has happened a number of times. Militant in the Eighties is an obvious one, but in the 1950s and 30s there were similar attempted purges of hard left factions.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,090
    I'm confused. The Tory lines seem to be: "The policy is good, it was the implementation that was bad" and "well the policy started under Labour anyway". But those lines undermine each other. Put them together and you get "Labour came up with a great policy, then we came along and fucked up the implementation"
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    Foxy said:



    Very much on show in the debate in the HOC as also with the SNP. They are going to lose a lot of working class votes if they carry on like this

    more than right the government’s hostile environment policy is scrutinised.
    The hostile environment policy towards illegal immigration was first adopted by Alan Johnson under labour and all subsequent home secretaries since. Labour condemning their own policy, and as far as illegal immigration is concerned it is widely supported
    According to an LD (Polly MacKenzie) it started in 2012:

    Most I can find on Labour and hostile environment is that Johnson used the term in a speech, not the policy we’ve seen in the last few years: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6114549/emily-thornberry-admits-labour-were-first-to-suggest-hostile-environment-for-immigrants-as-she-wades-into-windrush-row/amp/

    It was labour policy and some of the Windrush group were materially affected under labour from 2005 Amber Rudd confirmed at the despatch box today
    Thornberry says that it wasn’t, as per the article and also this link - which again refers to the same interview. It clarifies that the term was first used by Johnson in 2010.

    “It is right that we should have rules, and they should be enforced, and they should be done fairly and done fast and it should be firm. I have no problem with that,” she said.

    “But to lift that phrasing and embed it and strengthen it, and make it so much sharper and nastier, that was the difference.”

    “The words were used [under Labour], but the culture was not.”

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/94572/emily-thornberry-calls-amber-rudd-quit-over-windrush-scandal
    So if I did a quick google for home office statements from 2004 (one wave of anti-illegal immigrant laws) and again in 2006-7 I'm not going to find anything about making things difficult? Come on.

    It is all a question of fact and degree. The Tories went further.
    The other difference was that the Tories pursued not known illegals, but rather people with legal right to reside, but undocumented.
    +1...so it’s not the same policy. The big criticism of it, after all is the hostile environment policy has ended up affecting people who aren’t illegal immigrants.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,790
    Mr. Roger, has there actually been a result there?

    The banning of deep-scan pornography (which I'd never heard of prior to the ban news, but involves having a celebrity's face pasted [convincingly] onto an adult actress' body) suggests that technology has reached a pretty advanced stage. However, it also suggests that copyright and the right to one's own image remains protected under the law.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,296
    edited April 23

    Blunkett Reid Johnson you mean the moderates

    Thankfully never again will people like that get near power under Corbyn

    You'll just have a load of worse scum.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,426
    Good stuff from Amber Rudd. It's ironic that she's getting so much flak, when she's the first Home Secretary in 50 years to get to grips with this issue.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,622
    kle4 said:


    A lot of politicians adopt the tough on immigration rhetoric (which is hardly helpful, either) but then don’t follow through on the matter.

    Perhaps so (and I do think actions are more important than words, the the faux outrage over Cameron using the word 'swarming' comes to mind, since the anger at the word eclipsed what the issue was supposedly about), and as I said the government has been in office awhile now and bears responsibility for matters, but if you are going to decry hostility, it's not a good look when you appeared to want to be just as hostile, but an election got in the way. And if the defence is 'Well we didn't mean what we said', that's not a great look either.

    The government still looks worse, but Labour would be well advised not to lay it on so thick, since I very much doubt some very senior people did not say things that have the appearance of the same attitude as the government now. There isn't a need to overplay things, this scandal is damaging the government with very little effort needed from labour.
    But the current incarnation of the Labour Party believe that there was an evil Tory government in office between 1997 and 2010.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,090
    kle4 said:


    A lot of politicians adopt the tough on immigration rhetoric (which is hardly helpful, either) but then don’t follow through on the matter.

    Perhaps so (and I do think actions are more important than words, the the faux outrage over Cameron using the word 'swarming' comes to mind, since the anger at the word eclipsed what the issue was supposedly about), and as I said the government has been in office awhile now and bears responsibility for matters, but if you are going to decry hostility, it's not a good look when you appeared to want to be just as hostile, but an election got in the way. And if the defence is 'Well we didn't mean what we said', that's not a great look either.

    The government still looks worse, but Labour would be well advised not to lay it on so thick, since I very much doubt some very senior people did not say things that have the appearance of the same attitude as the government now. There isn't a need to overplay things, this scandal is damaging the government with very little effort needed from labour.
    If you asked 100 people what being hostile to illegal immigration would look like, how many different answers do you think you'd get? The idea that because Labour was using similar language they somehow bear responsibly for the detailed specifics of a Tory policy seems very strange.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,202
    On topic, 2019 looks like a lay to me. This can win in one of three ways:

    1) Theresa May goes this year.
    2) Theresa May privately agrees that she'll go when the Brexit job is done. But that isn't on 29 March 2019, there's a long term deal to negotiate.
    3) Theresa May decides that she isn't going to go quietly full stop and the Conservative party acquiesces in this, next year at least, because all the alternatives look just as unappetising as they do right now.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    edited April 23
    kle4 said:


    A lot of politicians adopt the tough on immigration rhetoric (which is hardly helpful, either) but then don’t follow through on the matter.

    Perhaps so (and I do think actions are more important than words, the the faux outrage over Cameron using the word 'swarming' comes to mind, since the anger at the word eclipsed what the issue was supposedly about), and as I said the government has been in office awhile now and bears responsibility for matters, but if you are going to decry hostility, it's not a good look when you appeared to want to be just as hostile, but an election got in the way. And if the defence is 'Well we didn't mean what we said', that's not a great look either.

    The government still looks worse, but Labour would be well advised not to lay it on so thick, since I very much doubt some very senior people did not say things that have the appearance of the same attitude as the government now. There isn't a need to overplay things, this scandal is damaging the government with very little effort needed from labour.
    I think the problem for Labour is that the leadership now seems to have different attitudes to the issue of immigration than the previous old guard. From what I understand Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott all voted against the 2014 Act. They’ve even been posting videos from 2014 from the latter two talking about their opposition to the bill on Twitter.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,040

    Good stuff from Amber Rudd. It's ironic that she's getting so much flak, when she's the first Home Secretary in 50 years to get to grips with this issue.

    Expelling the wrong people doesn't bother you? Or is it just about numbers?

    Treating people as numbers is the root of many evils.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,793
    edited April 23

    I'm confused. The Tory lines seem to be: "The policy is good, it was the implementation that was bad" and "well the policy started under Labour anyway". But those lines undermine each other. Put them together and you get "Labour came up with a great policy, then we came along and fucked up the implementation"

    They really need to pick one or the other. Being charitable it is an attempt to suggest Labour cannot have it both ways, in criticising the policy and its implementation, if they too share in glory/shame of the policy, but given the nature of the cock ups, I don't think that is a realistic approach, and they need to either say the policy is crap, or unambiguously fix the implementation issues.

    kle4 said:


    A lot of politicians adopt the tough on immigration rhetoric (which is hardly helpful, either) but then don’t follow through on the matter.

    Per labour.
    If you asked 100 people what being hostile to illegal immigration would look like, how many different answers do you think you'd get? The idea that because Labour was using similar language they somehow bear responsibly for the detailed specifics of a Tory policy seems very strange.
    And I didn't say they did. I said they need to not lay it on so thick, because of their past rhetoric giving at least the appearance they were in favour of being very harsh, and quite frankly that provides the Tories with an easier distraction than if they were note quite so dramatic.

    Getting hysterical about how awful a hostile atmosphere is when you've at least appeared very hostile on the issue, at least deflects from the actually important issue of the impacts of the policy itself. Just continue to point out the current impacts and failure to fix it, and let the public draw the conclusion, being very critical without opening themselves open to attack should be the order of the day. The focus on atmosphere, which leads into a discussion on, among other things, language, leads away from the more important issues.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,202
    TRIGGER WARNING FOR LEAVERS.

    The FT has come out in favour of remaining in the Customs Union:

    https://www.ft.com/content/b589b0c4-46f2-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7ccb

    DETAILS OF TRIGGER WARNING

    The FT uses rational arguments in favour of its position and is critical of Leavers for failing to come up with an alternative.

    Recommended counter-measure: ad hominem.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,762
    edited April 23
    For the record, Macmillan never said 'Events dear boy, events'. Though he did say the greatest challenge in politics was 'The opposition of events' which is a neat bit of wordplay if not nearly as quotable.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,426
    edited April 23
    Foxy said:

    Good stuff from Amber Rudd. It's ironic that she's getting so much flak, when she's the first Home Secretary in 50 years to get to grips with this issue.

    Expelling the wrong people doesn't bother you? Or is it just about numbers?

    Treating people as numbers is the root of many evils.
    Expelling the wrong people, and making their life hard, is EXACTLY what bothers me, which is why I praised Amber Rudd. For 50 years, the legal status of the 'Windrush generation*' has been fudged by successive governments, so that it has been unclear exactly what their status is. (A lot of them seem to have thought that they were British citizens, when they weren't.) That is entirely the problem, which she is now fixing.

    * (a misleading term, because many of the people affected came here much later, but it will do as shorthand)
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,090
    kle4 said:

    I'm confused. The Tory lines seem to be: "The policy is good, it was the implementation that was bad" and "well the policy started under Labour anyway". But those lines undermine each other. Put them together and you get "Labour came up with a great policy, then we came along and fucked up the implementation"

    They really need to pick one or the other. Being charitable it is an attempt to suggest Labour cannot have it both ways, in criticising the policy and its implementation, if they too share in glory/shame of the policy, but given the nature of the cock ups, I don't think that is a realistic approach, and they need to either say the policy is crap, or unambiguously fix the implementation issues.

    kle4 said:


    A lot of politicians adopt the tough on immigration rhetoric (which is hardly helpful, either) but then don’t follow through on the matter.

    Perhaps so (and I do think actions are more important than words, the the faux outrage over Cameron using the word 'swarming' comes to mind, since the anger at the word eclipsed what the issue was supposedly about), and as I said the government has been in office awhile now and bears responsibility for matters, but if you are going to decry hostility, it's not a good look when you appeared to want to be just as hostile, but an election got in the way. And if the defence is 'Well we didn't mean what we said', that's not a great look either.

    The government still looks worse, but Labour would be well advised not to lay it on so thick, since I very much doubt some very senior people did not say things that have the appearance of the same attitude as the government now. There isn't a need to overplay things, this scandal is damaging the government with very little effort needed from labour.
    If you asked 100 people what being hostile to illegal immigration would look like, how many different answers do you think you'd get? The idea that because Labour was using similar language they somehow bear responsibly for the detailed specifics of a Tory policy seems very strange.
    And I didn't say they did. I said they need to not lay it on so think, because of their past rhetoric giving at least the appearance they were in favour of being very harsh.
    Fair enough, but I think the Tories are being forced to give Labour cover on this, because the only line they can reasonably take is that it's perfectly possible to be tough on illegal immigration without causing these kinds of problems for legal immigrants. Which will be just what Labour will claim they intended. It's possible that Labour would either have made exactly the same mistake or been far too soft on illegal immigration, but it's not easy for the Tories to connect those particular dots.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,090

    Foxy said:

    Good stuff from Amber Rudd. It's ironic that she's getting so much flak, when she's the first Home Secretary in 50 years to get to grips with this issue.

    Expelling the wrong people doesn't bother you? Or is it just about numbers?

    Treating people as numbers is the root of many evils.
    Expelling the wrong people, and making their life hard, is EXACTLY what bothers me, which is why I praised Amber Rudd. For 50 years, the legal status of the 'Windrush generation*' has been fudged by successive governments, so that it has been unclear exactly what their status is. That is entirely the problem, which she is now fixing.

    * (a misleading term, because many of the people affected came here much later, but it will do as shorthand)
    I think it's possible that lost jobs and benefits, denied healthcare and people being trapped outside their home country is the entire problem and that, beyond that, ambiguity in some civil servants' paperwork really doesn't matter at all. We know that the Windrush generation's legal status needn't have led to actual, real-world suffering because it didn't for decades.

    And even putting that aside, I'm sure you understand why Rudd isn't winning plaudits for a reaction she was very visibly forced into by mass media coverage after years of not giving a shit.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,017
    Increasingly I now think May will last the course until 2022.Pre-Brexit she'll remain the hostage of the ERG and post-Brexit will be such a keep of shite no-one else is prepared to accept a poisoned chalice.There remains the complete dearth of leadership potential in the Tory ranks as well.
  • Long time lurker giving an advisory
    The refresh/updates for discussion threads is not working like it was a couple of weeks (months?) ago. I noticed that another poster remarked the same thing, but nothing has changed.
    It is really fcuking annoying, and you will lose a lot of viewings as a result. You see the number of comments increase, press refresh, but SWA happens.
    Great site, love the diverse range of views, but this really sucks, as you cannot go with the flow of the threads. Get it fixed, and I may even move from being a lurker.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,622

    Mr. Roger, has there actually been a result there?

    The banning of deep-scan pornography (which I'd never heard of prior to the ban news, but involves having a celebrity's face pasted [convincingly] onto an adult actress' body) suggests that technology has reached a pretty advanced stage. However, it also suggests that copyright and the right to one's own image remains protected under the law.

    The proceedings were issued today, I guess it will take months to actually come to court.

    Advances in video technology are pretty scary. It’s already pretty much good enough to take a video of someone speaking and change their words completely. Pretty scary if you’re a public figure or a candidate for election.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,202

    Long time lurker giving an advisory
    The refresh/updates for discussion threads is not working like it was a couple of weeks (months?) ago. I noticed that another poster remarked the same thing, but nothing has changed.
    It is really fcuking annoying, and you will lose a lot of viewings as a result. You see the number of comments increase, press refresh, but SWA happens.
    Great site, love the diverse range of views, but this really sucks, as you cannot go with the flow of the threads. Get it fixed, and I may even move from being a lurker.

    I find that, if I'm not logged in on vanilla. So having logged in to comment, you will probably find it works much better.

    Perhaps that's all the encouragement needed to move from being a lurker?

    Welcome.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,296

    Long time lurker giving an advisory
    The refresh/updates for discussion threads is not working like it was a couple of weeks (months?) ago. I noticed that another poster remarked the same thing, but nothing has changed.
    It is really fcuking annoying, and you will lose a lot of viewings as a result. You see the number of comments increase, press refresh, but SWA happens.
    Great site, love the diverse range of views, but this really sucks, as you cannot go with the flow of the threads. Get it fixed, and I may even move from being a lurker.

    I find that, if I'm not logged in on vanilla. So having logged in to comment, you will probably find it works much better.

    Perhaps that's all the encouragement needed to move from being a lurker?

    Welcome.
    I think Mr Freak is referring to an earlier post by myself, and I think I've seen it whilst logged in as well - from my limited testing it seems to be device-related, rather than logged in or not.

    It is really annoying, as it happens on my mobile, which I use to read PB whilst out and about, when I cannot shift to another device.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,426
    edited April 23


    I think it's possible that lost jobs and benefits, denied healthcare and people being trapped outside their home country is the entire problem and that, beyond that, ambiguity in some civil servants' paperwork really doesn't matter at all. We know that the Windrush generation's legal status needn't have led to actual, real-world suffering because it didn't for decades.

    That's garbage. Of course the Guardian - which can of course never be accused of missing an opportunity to blame the Tories for all ills known to man - does its best to gloss over the dates in case like these, where the problems either happened under Labour, or under rules introduced by Labour:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/20/its-inhumane-the-windrush-victims-who-have-lost-jobs-homes-and-loved-ones

    Having gone to Jamaica for his 50th birthday [in 2010] – his first visit since arriving in Britain aged six – Robinson was told at the airport he could not return on his Jamaican passport. He lived in bedsits and hostels for 21 months, until a solicitor resolved the case. On his return in 2011, however, he was told he owed £4,500 for unpaid rent and council tax. Taken to court and evicted, Robinson has been sofa-surfing since.

    and

    Having moved from Jamaica 51 years ago, aged six, the benefits agency challenged O’Connor’s immigration status last summer after she lost her job in the computer shop where she had worked for 16 years. Several potential new employers withdrew offers upon realising she had no passport. She had to sell her car and was facing bankruptcy in March. After her story was publicised last month, the Home Office promised to waive her fees for a biometric card application.

    and

    Francis came from Jamaica with his two sisters when he was about seven, to join their parents. He worked on repairing Royal Navy ships but after being made redundant four years ago, no one will employ him because he does not have a passport or other proof of his right to live and work in the UK.

    and many more.

    Don't get me wrong - these and the other cases are awful, but the root cause goes back decades.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,426
    Anorak said:
    Brilliant! I hope Labour do the decent thing and keep her as a candidate.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,434


    I think it's possible that lost jobs and benefits, denied healthcare and people being trapped outside their home country is the entire problem and that, beyond that, ambiguity in some civil servants' paperwork really doesn't matter at all. We know that the Windrush generation's legal status needn't have led to actual, real-world suffering because it didn't for decades.

    That's garbage. Of course the Guardian - which can of course never be accused of missing an opportunity to blame the Tories for all ills known to man - does its best to gloss over the dates in case like these, where the problems either happened under Labour, or under rules introduced by Labour:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/20/its-inhumane-the-windrush-victims-who-have-lost-jobs-homes-and-loved-ones

    Having gone to Jamaica for his 50th birthday [in 2010] – his first visit since arriving in Britain aged six – Robinson was told at the airport he could not return on his Jamaican passport. He lived in bedsits and hostels for 21 months, until a solicitor resolved the case. On his return in 2011, however, he was told he owed £4,500 for unpaid rent and council tax. Taken to court and evicted, Robinson has been sofa-surfing since.

    and

    Having moved from Jamaica 51 years ago, aged six, the benefits agency challenged O’Connor’s immigration status last summer after she lost her job in the computer shop where she had worked for 16 years. Several potential new employers withdrew offers upon realising she had no passport. She had to sell her car and was facing bankruptcy in March. After her story was publicised last month, the Home Office promised to waive her fees for a biometric card application.

    and

    Francis came from Jamaica with his two sisters when he was about seven, to join their parents. He worked on repairing Royal Navy ships but after being made redundant four years ago, no one will employ him because he does not have a passport or other proof of his right to live and work in the UK.

    and many more.

    Don't get me wrong - these and the other cases are awful, but the root cause goes back decades.

    So for the first case at some point he must have applied for a Jamaican passport but not a UK passport.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.

    I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,256

    Good stuff from Amber Rudd. It's ironic that she's getting so much flak, when she's the first Home Secretary in 50 years to get to grips with this issue.

    There is no credit in dealing with an issue only when forced to do so. She's had nearly two years to get to grips with it on her own initiative and not only failed, but promised the PM to pursue the policies which have caused so much suffering with renewed vigour and determination.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,884


    I think it's possible that lost jobs and benefits, denied healthcare and people being trapped outside their home country is the entire problem and that, beyond that, ambiguity in some civil servants' paperwork really doesn't matter at all. We know that the Windrush generation's legal status needn't have led to actual, real-world suffering because it didn't for decades.

    That's garbage. Of course the Guardian - which can of course never be accused of missing an opportunity to blame the Tories for all ills known to man - does its best to gloss over the dates in case like these, where the problems either happened under Labour, or under rules introduced by Labour:

    Having gone to Jamaica for his 50th birthday [in 2010] – his first visit since arriving in Britain aged six – Robinson was told at the airport he could not return on his Jamaican passport. He lived in bedsits and hostels for 21 months, until a solicitor resolved the case. On his return in 2011, however, he was told he owed £4,500 for unpaid rent and council tax. Taken to court and evicted, Robinson has been sofa-surfing since.

    and

    Having moved from Jamaica 51 years ago, aged six, the benefits agency challenged O’Connor’s immigration status last summer after she lost her job in the computer shop where she had worked for 16 years. Several potential new employers withdrew offers upon realising she had no passport. She had to sell her car and was facing bankruptcy in March. After her story was publicised last month, the Home Office promised to waive her fees for a biometric card application.

    and

    Francis came from Jamaica with his two sisters when he was about seven, to join their parents. He worked on repairing Royal Navy ships but after being made redundant four years ago, no one will employ him because he does not have a passport or other proof of his right to live and work in the UK.

    and many more.

    Don't get me wrong - these and the other cases are awful, but the root cause goes back decades.

    No it wasn't. All of these incidents and the scandalous treatment of long term UK residents came about because of the 2014 Immigration Act, introduced by Theresa May. That pernicious act should be repealed. Honourable politicians could campaign to do so.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,622

    Anorak said:
    Brilliant! I hope Labour do the decent thing and keep her as a candidate.
    Indeed so. Perhaps Guido should be sticking with stories of council candidates for now, and saving the MP candidates for after the election is called and nominations have closed! ;)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,685
    Anorak said:
    It’s actually well written, and indeed if she has been subject to surveillance and poisoning by MI5 then it all makes sense.

    Or, she’s batshit crazy.

    But she writes lucidly.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,556
    FF43 said:


    I think it's possible that lost jobs and benefits, denied healthcare and people being trapped outside their home country is the entire problem and that, beyond that, ambiguity in some civil servants' paperwork really doesn't matter at all. We know that the Windrush generation's legal status needn't have led to actual, real-world suffering because it didn't for decades.

    That's garbage. Of course the Guardian - which can of course never be accused of missing an opportunity to blame the Tories for all ills known to man - does its best to gloss over the dates in case like these, where the problems either happened under Labour, or under rules introduced by Labour:

    Having gone to Jamaica for his 50th birthday [in 2010] – his first visit since arriving in Britain aged six – Robinson was told at the airport he could not return on his Jamaican passport. He lived in bedsits and hostels for 21 months, until a solicitor resolved the case. On his return in 2011, however, he was told he owed £4,500 for unpaid rent and council tax. Taken to court and evicted, Robinson has been sofa-surfing since.

    and

    Having moved from Jamaica 51 years ago, aged six, the benefits agency challenged O’Connor’s immigration status last summer after she lost her job in the computer shop where she had worked for 16 years. Several potential new employers withdrew offers upon realising she had no passport. She had to sell her car and was facing bankruptcy in March. After her story was publicised last month, the Home Office promised to waive her fees for a biometric card application.

    and

    Francis came from Jamaica with his two sisters when he was about seven, to join their parents. He worked on repairing Royal Navy ships but after being made redundant four years ago, no one will employ him because he does not have a passport or other proof of his right to live and work in the UK.

    and many more.

    Don't get me wrong - these and the other cases are awful, but the root cause goes back decades.

    No it wasn't. All of these incidents and the scandalous treatment of long term UK residents came about because of the 2014 Immigration Act, introduced by Theresa May. That pernicious act should be repealed. Honourable politicians could campaign to do so.
    That pesky backward-in-time causation at work again, then.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,426

    So for the first case at some point he must have applied for a Jamaican passport but not a UK passport.

    More details here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/19/windrush-generation-tell-of-holidays-that-led-to-exile-and-heartbreak

    Another example in that article also show how the problem existed under Labour:

    Junior Green, 61... Despite having the letter, he said the problems began when he lost the passport containing the stamp. Attempts to get his new Jamaican passport stamped with the indefinite leave to remain were rebuffed by the Home Office in 2009 and 2014, he says, because he was unable to furnish them with proof of 10 years of continuous residence, even though he had the 1993 letter.

    As I said, kudos to Amber for finally getting a grip on this. It's fair enough to criticise Theresa May for introducing the 2012 Act without addressing with the long-existing problems, but I really don't see how Amber Rudd can be blamed for it, nor do I see how Labour can claim the moral high ground.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,998

    I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.

    I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.

    Time for an election? "Who governs?"
  • Thanks for the welcome, mr Meeks. I remember you posting as Antifrank.
    I am not sure what the issue is, but I have had problems with safari (cannot refresh (or even login!?!) via iPhone/iPad), but am now logging in via another app, which seems to work. It is still a bit shit, if I am honest, and if all other posters go through the same horrid process, then I salute your dedication.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    Anorak said:
    It’s actually well written, and indeed if she has been subject to surveillance and poisoning by MI5 then it all makes sense.

    Or, she’s batshit crazy.

    But she writes lucidly.
    MI5 only have a few hundred active field agents to monitor and track thousands of potentially dangerous terrorists and foreign spies.

    Why would they bother with her?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,622
    Didn’t take long for Guido to find a photo: caption competition time!

    image
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,426
    Ishmael_Z said:

    FF43 said:


    I think it's possible that lost jobs and benefits, denied healthcare and people being trapped outside their home country is the entire problem and that, beyond that, ambiguity in some civil servants' paperwork really doesn't matter at all. We know that the Windrush generation's legal status needn't have led to actual, real-world suffering because it didn't for decades.

    That's garbage. Of course the Guardian - which can of course never be accused of missing an opportunity to blame the Tories for all ills known to man - does its best to gloss over the dates in case like these, where the problems either happened under Labour, or under rules introduced by Labour:

    Having gone to Jamaica for his 50th birthday [in 2010] – his first visit since arriving in Britain aged six – Robinson was told at the airport he could not return on his Jamaican passport. He lived in bedsits and hostels for 21 months, until a solicitor resolved the case. On his return in 2011, however, he was told he owed £4,500 for unpaid rent and council tax. Taken to court and evicted, Robinson has been sofa-surfing since.

    and

    Having moved from Jamaica 51 years ago, aged six, the benefits agency challenged O’Connor’s immigration status last summer after she lost her job in the computer shop where she had worked for 16 years. Several potential new employers withdrew offers upon realising she had no passport. She had to sell her car and was facing bankruptcy in March. After her story was publicised last month, the Home Office promised to waive her fees for a biometric card application.

    and

    Francis came from Jamaica with his two sisters when he was about seven, to join their parents. He worked on repairing Royal Navy ships but after being made redundant four years ago, no one will employ him because he does not have a passport or other proof of his right to live and work in the UK.

    and many more.

    Don't get me wrong - these and the other cases are awful, but the root cause goes back decades.

    No it wasn't. All of these incidents and the scandalous treatment of long term UK residents came about because of the 2014 Immigration Act, introduced by Theresa May. That pernicious act should be repealed. Honourable politicians could campaign to do so.
    That pesky backward-in-time causation at work again, then.
    Of course. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 was entirely the fault of Theresa May and the Tories. Nothing whatever to do with Labour, natch.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,685

    Anorak said:
    It’s actually well written, and indeed if she has been subject to surveillance and poisoning by MI5 then it all makes sense.

    Or, she’s batshit crazy.

    But she writes lucidly.
    MI5 only have a few hundred active field agents to monitor and track thousands of potentially dangerous terrorists and foreign spies.

    Why would they bother with her?
    Sorry, my post didn’t make it clear enough.
    She is almost certainly batshit.

    However her post is not the kind of rambling rant one normally finds on social media, and nor is Finchley Road mentioned.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.

    I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.

    Time for an election? "Who governs?"
    It might come down to that.

    I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,622

    I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.

    I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.

    Time for an election? "Who governs?"
    It might come down to that.

    I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
    Volunteers needed for 150 new Conservative peers?
This discussion has been closed.