Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Amber warning: Rudd is safe – for now

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited April 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Amber warning: Rudd is safe – for now

Politics is not just showbiz for ugly people; it’s also sport for the energetic, enthusiastic, passionate but physically average. Although virtually all politicians go into it because they believe strongly in at least some aspects of what their party stands for and because they want to see the reforms they champion implemented, most also simply enjoy practising politics – the camaraderie of (and rivalry within) the teams, the somewhat artificial opposition, the set-piece challenges, the games within the game. They almost have to enjoy it: it’s so intrinsic to the process that it’d be deadly to go into unless you did (this testosterone-filled fact of itself goes some way to explain both the male preponderance of politicians).

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964
    First! And a happy Ed Balls day to one and all! :D
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964
    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    "Citizens of nowhere" was directed at the elites. I don't think you can so easily conflate the two.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    RobD said:

    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    "Citizens of nowhere" was directed at the elites. I don't think you can so easily conflate the two.
    Unlike Guardian readers and much of the commentariat, I doubt voters see themselves as "citizens of nowhere"....they pay their taxes, have one home and know where they live - "citizens of nowhere" - or 'typical second home owners" as one BBC interviewer memorably put it to an economist who pointed out there as nothing remotely "typical" about second home owners (~1% of the population) are the ones who dislike this - in electoral terms they're nugatory....
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    RobD said:

    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    "Citizens of nowhere" was directed at the elites. I don't think you can so easily conflate the two.
    Unlike Guardian readers and much of the commentariat, I doubt voters see themselves as "citizens of nowhere"....they pay their taxes, have one home and know where they live - "citizens of nowhere" - or 'typical second home owners" as one BBC interviewer memorably put it to an economist who pointed out there as nothing remotely "typical" about second home owners (~1% of the population) are the ones who dislike this - in electoral terms they're nugatory....
    Yes - this has been the weakness of the Abbott/Labour attack - they are trying to both topple Rudd by conflating Windrush with a pro-immigration line to include everyone - migrant/refugee/legal/illegal. In doing this they are totally in their comfort zone but it ain't where the general public are at!
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    RobD said:

    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    "Citizens of nowhere" was directed at the elites. I don't think you can so easily conflate the two.
    Unlike Guardian readers and much of the commentariat, I doubt voters see themselves as "citizens of nowhere"....they pay their taxes, have one home and know where they live - "citizens of nowhere" - or 'typical second home owners" as one BBC interviewer memorably put it to an economist who pointed out there as nothing remotely "typical" about second home owners (~1% of the population) are the ones who dislike this - in electoral terms they're nugatory....
    But it wasn't just what she said. It was the way she said it. It was done in a negative way. I'm as much a citizen of somewhere as they come, but it still made me feel uncomfortable.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    RobD said:

    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    "Citizens of nowhere" was directed at the elites. I don't think you can so easily conflate the two.
    Unlike Guardian readers and much of the commentariat, I doubt voters see themselves as "citizens of nowhere"....they pay their taxes, have one home and know where they live - "citizens of nowhere" - or 'typical second home owners" as one BBC interviewer memorably put it to an economist who pointed out there as nothing remotely "typical" about second home owners (~1% of the population) are the ones who dislike this - in electoral terms they're nugatory....
    When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said; ah, but Humpty Dumpty is not Prime Minister whose "citizens of nowhere" was indeed aimed at the global tax-dodging elite but sounds like it might be a sneer at ordinary people. Labour has the same problem when it criticises targets, by which it means specific numbers pushed down the line, which is a bad thing because it raises the risk of injustice, because it sounds as if it does not want the aspirational target or overall goal of reducing illegal immigration. Donald Trump showed his campaigning mastery by hijacking the term fake news and turning it to dismiss any inconvenient fact.
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited April 2018

    RobD said:

    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    "Citizens of nowhere" was directed at the elites. I don't think you can so easily conflate the two.
    Unlike Guardian readers and much of the commentariat, I doubt voters see themselves as "citizens of nowhere"....they pay their taxes, have one home and know where they live - "citizens of nowhere" - or 'typical second home owners" as one BBC interviewer memorably put it to an economist who pointed out there as nothing remotely "typical" about second home owners (~1% of the population) are the ones who dislike this - in electoral terms they're nugatory....
    "Citizens of nowhere" is similar to the Soviet-era smear "rootless cosmopolitans", which was a euphemism for Jews. Those who feel that they are outsiders will be deeply suspicious of a politician who uses such a phrase.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Good morning, everyone.

    Interesting article. I agree that Rudd is likely safe for now (I was having slight regret about my 1.5 backing of her to be in her job at midday 1st March, but feeling a bit better about that now).

    Rudd's also been fortunate with the timing. It happened the same time as the Korean meeting which will have severely diminished the coverage.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,277
    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmospheres reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    Your last sentence is why she won’t go. David’s excellent summary misses that point. If the coda looks like it will lead to the boss the determination to resist is much stronger. And this is more May’s mess than Rudd’s.

    I was quite surprised by the polling on the previous thread. The vast majority, even supporting other parties, don’t blame Rudd for this. A really effective attack has to be brought home to the individual. This has not been despite Rudd’s best efforts to self harm.
  • Options
    saddosaddo Posts: 534
    She's very safe in role. She's a firewall for May apart from anything else.

    Secondly, Labour have directly called for her to resign. No way will May do what Labour ask her to do.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Saddo, if more emerges, I wonder if Rudd might resign of her own volition.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,979

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    ' It doesn't do that much work any more either’

    You are Priti Patel and I claim my £5
  • Options
    Ed Balls
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HHT_V294Co

  • Options
    TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited April 2018

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    Have you got any actual proof that us white working class folk are all a bunch of no-good doleys?
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,942
    edited April 2018
    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    Trouble is that May appears to have both in equal measure.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    Have you got any actual proof that us white working class folk are all a bunch of no-good doleys?
    I read it as 'donkey' at first! What's a 'doley' I can't find it?
  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    I suspect that there is a sub-text beyond being a firewall, and that both sides may ultimately wish to hang on to Rudd, due to her views on Brexit.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Roger, someone on the dole, presumably.
  • Options
    Roger said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    Have you got any actual proof that us white working class folk are all a bunch of no-good doleys?
    I read it as 'donkey' at first! What's a 'doley' I can't find it?
    I'm not surprised, Rog, dunno what you boys in the South of France would call it- Google translate comes up with assurance chômage!
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    Can I ask if you are a labour member ? If so,you should be ashamed of yourself with this post.

    Everything wrong with this post if you support labour,going against the people labour should represent in the working class and change the white to black working class and you my friend could be in trouble.

    First the Jews and now the white working class.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Mr. Roger, someone on the dole, presumably.

    Thanks! My brain is obviously not in gear yet. Time to go for a coffee......
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,203
    Those who live by identity politics .............

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5666983/Three-women-set-quit-Labour-party-decision-allow-transgender.html

    (always assuming the report is correct, of course).
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    Can I ask if you are a labour member ? If so,you should be ashamed of yourself with this post.

    Everything wrong with this post if you support labour,going against the people labour should represent in the working class and change the white to black working class and you my friend could be in trouble.

    First the Jews and now the white working class.
    They'll be after the oligarchs next.....
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,173
    Cyclefree said:

    Those who live by identity politics .............

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5666983/Three-women-set-quit-Labour-party-decision-allow-transgender.html

    (always assuming the report is correct, of course).

    It is from The Daily Mail, how could you possibly doubt the credence?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited April 2018
    Great front page from the "Sun"

    https://twitter.com/TheSun?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    North and South Korea Presidents and ABBA reunite !!

    But what of potential great PB related reunions. Will we see their like? ....

    Radiohead and a decent song .... OGH and follicular activity .... TSE and pineapple pizza

    My cape ... I'm off !!!!!!!!!!!

  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    saddo said:

    She's very safe in role. She's a firewall for May apart from anything else.

    Secondly, Labour have directly called for her to resign. No way will May do what Labour ask her to do.

    Thirdly Windrush is a zero visibility event outside the bubble.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I don't agree with that. People are aware and aghast at Windrush, but attempts by Labour to broaden it out to illegal migration is bloody stupid.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Cyclefree said:

    Those who live by identity politics .............

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5666983/Three-women-set-quit-Labour-party-decision-allow-transgender.html

    (always assuming the report is correct, of course).

    I went to an arthouse cinema yesterday where they had a transgender toilet. How trendy is that?
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Roger said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    Have you got any actual proof that us white working class folk are all a bunch of no-good doleys?
    I read it as 'donkey' at first! What's a 'doley' I can't find it?
    I'm not surprised, Rog, dunno what you boys in the South of France would call it- Google translate comes up with assurance chômage!
    I'm amazed Roger can live in a country which has just passed very harsh anti-migrant/immigrant laws.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Roger said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    Can I ask if you are a labour member ? If so,you should be ashamed of yourself with this post.

    Everything wrong with this post if you support labour,going against the people labour should represent in the working class and change the white to black working class and you my friend could be in trouble.

    First the Jews and now the white working class.
    They'll be after the oligarchs next.....
    Well nick griffin seems he likes this new brand of labour.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    Yet again, your Euromonomania clouds your judgement.

    If you look at the crowds who dominate pro-European protests, even in London, they are overwhelmingly white. Brexit is much less salient for ethnic minorities than you think it is.

    Seats like Hendon and Harrow West show that the Tories can win in very diverse areas, but they do much better with some minorities than others.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,203
    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Those who live by identity politics .............

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5666983/Three-women-set-quit-Labour-party-decision-allow-transgender.html

    (always assuming the report is correct, of course).

    I went to an arthouse cinema yesterday where they had a transgender toilet. How trendy is that?
    What film did you see?

  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Those who live by identity politics .............

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5666983/Three-women-set-quit-Labour-party-decision-allow-transgender.html

    (always assuming the report is correct, of course).

    I went to an arthouse cinema yesterday where they had a transgender toilet. How trendy is that?
    What film did you see?

    'Western'
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    Yet again, your Euromonomania clouds your judgement.

    If you look at the crowds who dominate pro-European protests, even in London, they are overwhelmingly white. Brexit is much less salient for ethnic minorities than you think it is.

    Seats like Hendon and Harrow West show that the Tories can win in very diverse areas, but they do much better with some minorities than others.
    In that YouGov London poll, 75% of BAME voters support Labour, 13% support the Conservatives. You're whistling in the wind.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    Yet again, your Euromonomania clouds your judgement.

    If you look at the crowds who dominate pro-European protests, even in London, they are overwhelmingly white. Brexit is much less salient for ethnic minorities than you think it is.

    Seats like Hendon and Harrow West show that the Tories can win in very diverse areas, but they do much better with some minorities than others.
    In that YouGov London poll, 75% of BAME voters support Labour, 13% support the Conservatives. You're whistling in the wind.
    Hillary Clinton put her faith in demographics too. Remind me who won the presidency?

    It’s obvious that most ethnic minority immigrants will tend to support Labour in the first instance, as they tend to be poorer on average, more dependent on public services, and more receptive to promises of easy access for friends and relatives from the old country. As the years pass, and the socioeconomic gap between them and the settled population decreases, these factors become less and less salient.

    British Jews used to be very anti-Tory; now they are the most overwhelmingly Conservative segment of the electorate. British Indians used to be overwhelmingly Labour, but are now also shifting decisively to the Tory camp. The same is true for those of Chinese or HK origin.

    BAME is a stupid acronym.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,605
    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Those who live by identity politics .............

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5666983/Three-women-set-quit-Labour-party-decision-allow-transgender.html

    (always assuming the report is correct, of course).

    I went to an arthouse cinema yesterday where they had a transgender toilet. How trendy is that?
    What film did you see?

    'Western'
    Any good? it tempted me at our arts cinema.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,994
    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    Yet again, your Euromonomania clouds your judgement.

    If you look at the crowds who dominate pro-European protests, even in London, they are overwhelmingly white. Brexit is much less salient for ethnic minorities than you think it is.

    Seats like Hendon and Harrow West show that the Tories can win in very diverse areas, but they do much better with some minorities than others.
    What ought to concern the Conservatives is their underperformance among ethnic minorities who supported Brexit (about one third) and 25-44 year olds who did so (about 43%). It doesn't matter if they come nowhere in Hackney or Haringey, but it does matter that their support is vanishing in Enfield and Redbridge.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    Yet again, your Euromonomania clouds your judgement.

    If you look at the crowds who dominate pro-European protests, even in London, they are overwhelmingly white. Brexit is much less salient for ethnic minorities than you think it is.

    Seats like Hendon and Harrow West show that the Tories can win in very diverse areas, but they do much better with some minorities than others.
    In that YouGov London poll, 75% of BAME voters support Labour, 13% support the Conservatives. You're whistling in the wind.
    but do they VOTE Labour...
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    You know it's bad when David "I'm to blame" Gauke is defending Amber Rudd.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,710

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I don't agree with that. People are aware and aghast at Windrush, but attempts by Labour to broaden it out to illegal migration is bloody stupid.

    The Windrush people were forced out of their jobs, denied healthcare and social security and had deportation notices served on them precisely because they are illegal immigrants according to the policy. If you cannot prove a right of abode, and the government has a policy of making it very difficult to do so, you are an illegal immigrant by definition.

    There's much less distinction between legal and illegal immigration than people think. The job of a gatekeeper should be to let the right people in with the least fuss while keeping the rest out. But the government wants to keep as many people out as is possible. The problems will continue unless it changes that policy.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    Yet again, your Euromonomania clouds your judgement.

    If you look at the crowds who dominate pro-European protests, even in London, they are overwhelmingly white. Brexit is much less salient for ethnic minorities than you think it is.

    Seats like Hendon and Harrow West show that the Tories can win in very diverse areas, but they do much better with some minorities than others.
    What ought to concern the Conservatives is their underperformance among ethnic minorities who supported Brexit (about one third) and 25-44 year olds who did so (about 43%). It doesn't matter if they come nowhere in Hackney or Haringey, but it does matter that their support is vanishing in Enfield and Redbridge.
    Isn’t the problem in those boroughs the fact that they’ve gone from owner occupation to buy-to-let HMOs in a relatively short space of time? That will never be good for the Tories.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,605

    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    Yet again, your Euromonomania clouds your judgement.

    If you look at the crowds who dominate pro-European protests, even in London, they are overwhelmingly white. Brexit is much less salient for ethnic minorities than you think it is.

    Seats like Hendon and Harrow West show that the Tories can win in very diverse areas, but they do much better with some minorities than others.
    In that YouGov London poll, 75% of BAME voters support Labour, 13% support the Conservatives. You're whistling in the wind.
    but do they VOTE Labour...
    I suspect that the Windrush scandals have increased their motivation and turnout to do so.
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.

    The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.

    If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.

    That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
    Can I ask if you are a labour member ? If so,you should be ashamed of yourself with this post.

    Everything wrong with this post if you support labour,going against the people labour should represent in the working class and change the white to black working class and you my friend could be in trouble.

    First the Jews and now the white working class.
    No I am not a Labour member, and I was not proposing any program to do anything. I was merely observing. In my extended working class family last Christmas I found myself meeting Algerian muslims and, as it happens, a Jew to whom I am now in some way related. My manual working parents are now retired, hence not working. The kinds of jobs they did are now very thin on the ground. Luckily there are a lot of alternative opportunities that never used to exist. But it does mean that many of us have a mental picture of what the working class looks like that no longer corresponds to what it actually looks like.

    It's important to see the world how it really is. Labour Party members I know are decent, public spirited people who seem to be at least trying to do the right thing. In fact they seem very similar to Conservative party members as people.

    I am unsure what kind of trouble you anticipate me being in. Your last sentence has no verb, so it is hard to work out what it means. I imagine I would rather not know.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Those who live by identity politics .............

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5666983/Three-women-set-quit-Labour-party-decision-allow-transgender.html

    (always assuming the report is correct, of course).

    I went to an arthouse cinema yesterday where they had a transgender toilet. How trendy is that?
    What film did you see?

    'Western'
    Any good? it tempted me at our arts cinema.
    It was described by Bradshaw in the Guardian as 'the best film of the year' which it most certainly isn't. I liked it but I'd be very loathe to recommend it. It was without plot just a slice of life where a small German construction crew were working in a small Bulgarian village and the difficulties in communication on various levels. I think if you were either a Bugarian speaker or a German you would have enjoyed it more. Definitely only for those who enjoy arthouse movies.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. 43, no, there isn't. Migrants come here legally or illegally, and pursuing the latter with a view to deportation is not merely reasonable but the active duty of a government.

    The government shift on proof is stupid, as was the decision to just destroy the landing cards. Other proof, however, should be available (NI records, for example).

    It's particularly obscene given how welcoming we seem to be to lunatics who flounced off to Syria to join up with ISIS and now wish to return.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Penddu said:
    I always mentally complete "Ein Gwlad" with "Ein Volk, Ein Reich."
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,932
    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    The lying toerags need to be dragged out kicking and screaming, no morals , no principles and no talent, ie just your average Tory Cabinet Minister.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Z, you are Ken Livingstone, and I claim five Reichsmarks.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,942
    Penddu said:
    If anything the fact that the police and Home Office are showing more sense these days.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Penddu said:
    I always mentally complete "Ein Gwlad" with "Ein Volk, Ein Reich."
    That’s unfortunate :tongue:
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,605

    Mr. 43, no, there isn't. Migrants come here legally or illegally, and pursuing the latter with a view to deportation is not merely reasonable but the active duty of a government.

    The problem has been the pusuit of the legal, not the illegal.

  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,710

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    edited April 2018
    Meanwhile, in socialist paradise:
    https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/990132704103534592

    Edited extra bit: Dr. Foxy, precisely. Labour's attempt to broaden this out is a mistake, because everyone (practically) agrees that the Windrush scandal is just such because it was against legal migrants.
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    An acute observation.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    edited April 2018
    Mr. Recidivist, it's almost as if people are opposed to anti-Semitism because they can see where it leads.

    https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/988740215383740416

    Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,994
    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    It seems that both have got a fair amount of outrage on this forum.

    To make it clear: the sickness that has infected Labour is deeper than just 'attending meetings'. And your post rather makes my point. ;)
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    I believe Labour politicians care more about the downtrodden and oppressed than do Conservatives and that's always the backdrop. I'm not particularly interested in people who take offence because of some real or imagined slight. Far more worrying those who are in seriously dire straits.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,209

    Meanwhile, in socialist paradise:
    https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/990132704103534592

    Edited extra bit: Dr. Foxy, precisely. Labour's attempt to broaden this out is a mistake, because everyone (practically) agrees that the Windrush scandal is just such because it was against legal migrants.

    And this on Ken Loach:

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/989795881460387840
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,942
    Foxy said:

    Mr. 43, no, there isn't. Migrants come here legally or illegally, and pursuing the latter with a view to deportation is not merely reasonable but the active duty of a government.

    The problem has been the pusuit of the legal, not the illegal.

    More than that. They have specifically targeted the legal because of their inability to deal with the illegal.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,605

    Meanwhile, in socialist paradise:
    https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/990132704103534592

    Edited extra bit: Dr. Foxy, precisely. Labour's attempt to broaden this out is a mistake, because everyone (practically) agrees that the Windrush scandal is just such because it was against legal migrants.

    The change has been to the presumption of innocence. No longer is the onus on the Home Office to prove illegality, it became a presumption of guilt, with the individual required to prove legality. It was a fundamental change, an illibrral one, and one that May was responsible for. Rudd is just her human shield.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,942
    malcolmg said:

    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    The lying toerags need to be dragged out kicking and screaming, no morals , no principles and no talent, ie just your average Tory Cabinet Minister.
    To be fair it is your average minister whichever party they come from.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mr. Recidivist, it's almost as if people are opposed to anti-Semitism because they can see where it leads.

    https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/988740215383740416

    Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.

    The difference being that non-Conservatives want to see some changes while Conservatives are a bit Albert And The Lion about this.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586

    Mr. 43, no, there isn't. Migrants come here legally or illegally, and pursuing the latter with a view to deportation is not merely reasonable but the active duty of a government.

    The government shift on proof is stupid, as was the decision to just destroy the landing cards. Other proof, however, should be available (NI records, for example).

    It's particularly obscene given how welcoming we seem to be to lunatics who flounced off to Syria to join up with ISIS and now wish to return.

    I think you’re simply wrong on there being some bright line between legal and illegal immigrants, Mr. D. - as evidenced by the very high percentage of immigration appeals which are won. You need also to consider that immigration laws have changed numerous times over the years.

    And given the legal/illegal dichotomy, and the extreme consequences for placing individuals on one side or the other, we should at least accord them the same fair process that we do in the criminal justice system. That has manifestly not been the case.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Dr. Foxy, indeed. Reminds me a little of the likes of Saunders being keen to get the number of rape convictions up, and nonsense about straight away believing plaintiffs rather than examining the evidence and reaching a conclusion based on that.

    Mr. Meeks, I do not know of Albert and the Lion.

    Mr. B, that's probably more indicative of government not spending a fortune on the best lawyers and/or government cock-ups to start with.
  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,991
    Amber Rudd is safe.

    The polling yesterday shows neither Labour nor Tory nor LD voters blame her for the Windrush fiasco, instead blaming the Home Office, or Theresa May if they are Labour or LD or the last Labour government if they are Tories.

    While the fact Diana Abbott is leading the Labour attacks on Rudd is like Dennis Healey said of Geoffrey Howe rather like 'being savaged by a dead sheep'
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    I believe Labour politicians care more about the downtrodden and oppressed than do Conservatives and that's always the backdrop. I'm not particularly interested in people who take offence because of some real or imagined slight. Far more worrying those who are in seriously dire straits.
    I think they care about *some* of the downtrodden and oppressed, but not others, and are hostile to those who they believe to be oppressors. That's why so many people are determined to vote Conservative.
  • Options
    daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    +1.

    If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.

    TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
  • Options
    nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138

    Ed Balls

    Ed Balls
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    Great header.

    I think Labour would have had more luck if (like James O'Brien) they had talked more about the fact that it is elderly, pensioners who are being deported/losing jobs.

    "This could have been your grandmother" etc. etc.

    That said I agree with others that May is unlikely to sack anyone regardless of how much pressure there is. She simply isn't strong enough to make such a senior enemy and it would look hypocritical given all the stuff she has let Boris get away with.
  • Options
    CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119

    Mr. 43, no, there isn't. Migrants come here legally or illegally, and pursuing the latter with a view to deportation is not merely reasonable but the active duty of a government.

    The government shift on proof is stupid, as was the decision to just destroy the landing cards. Other proof, however, should be available (NI records, for example).

    It's particularly obscene given how welcoming we seem to be to lunatics who flounced off to Syria to join up with ISIS and now wish to return.

    A view held my the vast majority of British people. But for some reason all the media and political class seem to be outraged by the idea.

    Why are all these people so out of touch?
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,710

    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    It seems that both have got a fair amount of outrage on this forum.

    To make it clear: the sickness that has infected Labour is deeper than just 'attending meetings'. And your post rather makes my point. ;)
    What is the sickness in concrete terms? By the way, I do accept Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism that is distinct from the discrimination that affects all parties. But compared with Windrush, it looks like a mote to a beam from where I'm standing. I disagree with your equal outrage claim. Labour anti-Semitism gets relentless coverage on this forum, while Windrush is a cock up, a conflation, completely overblown by Labour and the Guardian, unfortunate for the people concerned of course, but the public don't care, so why should we?

    I could say your post rather makes MY point?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Mr Dancer, I'm horrified. Please fill this shocking gap in your education at once:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oaw-savyK0s
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Meeks, look, I've been branching out into modernity in recent years. I've been reading vulgarly recent 'history' such as biographies of Edward III and Henry IV.

    Anyway, 'twas quite an amusing tale.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    I believe Labour politicians care more about the downtrodden and oppressed than do Conservatives and that's always the backdrop. I'm not particularly interested in people who take offence because of some real or imagined slight. Far more worrying those who are in seriously dire straits.
    I think they care about *some* of the downtrodden and oppressed, but not others, and are hostile to those who they believe to be oppressors. That's why so many people are determined to vote Conservative.
    That's a bit counter intuitive! Who are the downtrodden and oppressed that they are hostile to?
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,150
    Roger said:

    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    I believe Labour politicians care more about the downtrodden and oppressed than do Conservatives and that's always the backdrop. I'm not particularly interested in people who take offence because of some real or imagined slight. Far more worrying those who are in seriously dire straits.
    I think they care about *some* of the downtrodden and oppressed, but not others, and are hostile to those who they believe to be oppressors. That's why so many people are determined to vote Conservative.
    That's a bit counter intuitive! Who are the downtrodden and oppressed that they are hostile to?
    The few of course!
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    daodao said:

    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    +1.

    If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.

    TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
    The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,932

    malcolmg said:

    daodao said:

    Excellent thread! And May's PMQs bombshell over 'it was decided under a Labour government' (whose ministers would have had no more responsibility for it than May did when it was carried out, but Labour were trying to stick it on May so it was an effective riposte) over the Windrush landing cards certainly took the wind out of Labour's sails for a day or two.

    This recent 'targets' thing is a mess (if we have - orders of magnitude - around half a million here illegally I should jolly well hope the government has targets for sorting it out) - of Rudd's own making - but I suspect the Home Office is responsible for the leak, not Number 10.

    We know immigration is a 'hot button' - and while there is widespread well deserved sympathy for the Windrush generation, in general the public is still agin it, and Labour may end up appearing to be on the side of illegal immigration.....as Andrew Sparrow wisely observed, voters may be a lot more relaxed about this whole affair than politicians or the bubble (or indeed, they should be).

    Agree with Mr Herdson - Amber is 'taking one for the boss' - so should be safe for now...

    I'm not convinced that Rudd is secure. There are more leaks/allegations in today's press. The whole atmosphere reeks of WASPish disdain about those who are not "one of us", revealed by TM's contempt for "citizens of nowhere" a little while ago. Rudd may need to go to save the PM, who is the real author of these policies, but that would leave TM more exposed.
    The lying toerags need to be dragged out kicking and screaming, no morals , no principles and no talent, ie just your average Tory Cabinet Minister.
    To be fair it is your average minister whichever party they come from.
    Richard , yes it is really hobson's choice nowadays which is most depressing.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    I'll add you to my reading list. Very well put
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    Roger said:

    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    I believe Labour politicians care more about the downtrodden and oppressed than do Conservatives and that's always the backdrop. I'm not particularly interested in people who take offence because of some real or imagined slight. Far more worrying those who are in seriously dire straits.
    I think they care about *some* of the downtrodden and oppressed, but not others, and are hostile to those who they believe to be oppressors. That's why so many people are determined to vote Conservative.
    That's a bit counter intuitive! Who are the downtrodden and oppressed that they are hostile to?
    One feature of the various child grooming scandals has been the willingness of some mainly Labour councillors to look the other way because it was politically convenient to do so.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,605
    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    +1.

    If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.

    TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
    The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
    While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.

    Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    +1.

    If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.

    TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
    The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
    While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.

    Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
    I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mr. Meeks, look, I've been branching out into modernity in recent years. I've been reading vulgarly recent 'history' such as biographies of Edward III and Henry IV.

    Anyway, 'twas quite an amusing tale.

    I have two separate stories, one about Stanley Holloway and one about Blackpool zoo. Sadly neither is suitable for politicalbetting. Anyone at a pb drink should remind me.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,605
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    +1.

    If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.

    TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
    The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
    While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.

    Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
    I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
    So what was he expelled for?

    He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.

    Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836

    Mr. Meeks, look, I've been branching out into modernity in recent years. I've been reading vulgarly recent 'history' such as biographies of Edward III and Henry IV.

    Anyway, 'twas quite an amusing tale.

    I have two separate stories, one about Stanley Holloway and one about Blackpool zoo. Sadly neither is suitable for politicalbetting. Anyone at a pb drink should remind me.
    And it does happen. Children tease polar bears, wolves, crocodiles etc. at zoos, and get eaten.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    +1.

    If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.

    TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
    The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
    While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.

    Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
    I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
    So what was he expelled for?

    He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.

    Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
    I imagine that it is.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    TGOHF said:

    saddo said:

    She's very safe in role. She's a firewall for May apart from anything else.

    Secondly, Labour have directly called for her to resign. No way will May do what Labour ask her to do.

    Thirdly Windrush is a zero visibility event outside the bubble.
    I have to disagree. Even at best the goverment looks incompetent on a major issue.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,994
    FF43 said:

    What is the sickness in concrete terms? By the way, I do accept Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism that is distinct from the discrimination that affects all parties. But compared with Windrush, it looks like a mote to a beam from where I'm standing. I disagree with your equal outrage claim. Labour anti-Semitism gets relentless coverage on this forum, while Windrush is a cock up, a conflation, completely overblown by Labour and the Guardian, unfortunate for the people concerned of course, but the public don't care, so why should we?

    I could say your post rather makes MY point?

    In certain parts of Labour, and particularly near the top, it's an endemic ideological illness. One where people *know* they're good, decent people (unlike those evil scum in other parties). Because of this, they can't possible be racist or antisemitic, and neither can their fellow ideological travellers. Because they're the good guys. And even when one of the good guys does something bad, they should be defended because they're still good people, and the others are evil.

    In fact, it becomes a case where any behaviour can be excused as long as the person doing it is ideologically pure. Witness Livingstone et al, and the hilarious defensive reaction of certain posters on here.

    As for the comparison: look at the difference in reaction. The Windrush mess (and it is undoubtedly a terrible mess) was discovered, and it is being dealt with fairly quickly. Yes, it should never have happened, but it is being dealt with (and that is not to ignore the heartache it has caused people). Labour has known about its problem with antisemitism for a couple of years and aside from a deeply flawed 'inquiry', has done nothing and allowed it to fester.

    And it's only a 'mote' if you're not one of the ones being affected by it.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,605
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    FF43 said:

    Roger said:

    Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.

    I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill... ;)
    One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.

    I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
    +1.

    If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.

    TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
    The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
    While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.

    Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
    I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
    So what was he expelled for?

    He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.

    Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
    I imagine that it is.
    Even though Smeeth never contested the truth of the accusation?
This discussion has been closed.