politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes make Michael Gove favourite to succeed Rudd as HomeS

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes make Michael Gove favourite to succeed Rudd as HomeSec

The firm’s prices are here:-

Read the full story here

OldKingCole

First????

JohnLoony

Why doesn't the list of odds include the obvious replacement? Liz Truss, shurely?

Sandpit

Richard?

For now Rudd seems safe, mainly because the opposition are arguing with each other about how racist they are - as opposed to expending their energies on their political opponents the week before the local elections.

OldKingCole

JohnLoony said:

Why doesn't the list of odds include the obvious replacement? Liz Truss, shurely?

Not a bad thought, betting-wise. Whether she’d be any good at the jon.......

surby

Sandpit said:

Richard?

For now Rudd seems safe, mainly because the opposition are arguing with each other about how racist they are - as opposed to expending their energies on their political opponents the week before the local elections.

The main reason Rudd will be safe is because she is not the architect of the hostile environment policy. The real architect is hiding behind her.

MarqueeMark

Don't be a cock, it has to be Penny Mordaunt....

OldKingCole

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

Scott_P

surby said:

The main reason Rudd will be safe is because she is not the architect of the hostile environment policy. The real architect is hiding behind her.

https://twitter.com/Cartoon4sale/status/989615202969808897

surby

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

More harrowing stories here. None of them from the Windrush cohort.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/27/britain-home-hostile-environment-damage-spread-beyond-windrush

brendan16

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

This seems extraordinary - he has a document issued by a British consulate as evidence of birth and his parents were serving in the UK armed forces on duty when he was born in Germany. Surely there must be countless records.

Does he have one of his parents birth certificates? If his parents were British when he was born he is British by descent anyway.

This surely is a cock up by officials again - there is no question he is entitled to a UK passport as he is A UK citizen at birth by descent.

Still waiting until 39 to apply for a passport seems a bit remiss?

NickPalmer

It'd be a sideways step for Gove from a post where he's almost universally seen as doing well - can't see the logic of it, either for him or for the Government. The HO is best occupied by someone obscure with a history of inoffensiveness - Hunt would be quite good but seems to want to stay on at Health.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, fellow F1 enthusiasts.

Intriguingly poised race. Will set about writing the pre-race ramble (although I'd guess it'll be a little while).

On-topic: Gove. Hmm. Clever, but he does tend to be divisive which, perhaps, is not what's needed. A soft centrist, such as Hunt, would make more sense.

ydoethur

I think it is well known that I have no love for Michael Gove.

But I have always thought he would actually make quite a good Home Secretary. He's hard working, intelligent, determined, decisive and ruthless. Some of the things that were problematic at education - his inflexibility, his lack of nuance, his tendency to take all criticism personally, his almost Manichean view of the world - would actually be positive virtues in dealing with the Home Office. Moreover, he's undoubtedly sound on civil liberties in a way May and Rudd and their Labour predecessors were not.

It is sad those last qualities probably rule him out.

Please God, please please not Jacob Rees Mogg (although I think he would have the brains to refuse it - it would wreck the image of the maverick anachronism he's been building with care for eight years).

brendan16

surby said:

Sandpit said:

Richard?

For now Rudd seems safe, mainly because the opposition are arguing with each other about how racist they are - as opposed to expending their energies on their political opponents the week before the local elections.

The main reason Rudd will be safe is because she is not the architect of the hostile environment policy. The real architect is hiding behind her.

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only problem is that due to our appalling record keeping and systems we seem to have no idea who is legally here and who is here illegally. And that is the fault of Home Secretaries for decades.

surby

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, fellow F1 enthusiasts.

Intriguingly poised race. Will set about writing the pre-race ramble (although I'd guess it'll be a little while).

On-topic: Gove. Hmm. Clever, but he does tend to be divisive which, perhaps, is not what's needed. A soft centrist, such as Hunt, would make more sense.

Gove for Chancellor is probably a better idea. He could land us in the Customs Union, after some thought [ or pretend he had ].

OldKingCole

brendan16 said:

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

This seems extraordinary - he has a document issued by a British consulate as evidence of birth and his parents were serving in the UK armed forces on duty when he was born in Germany. Surely there must be countless records.

Does he have one of his parents birth certificates? If his parents were British when he was born he is British by descent anyway.

This surely is a cock up by officials again - there is no question he is entitled to a UK passport as he is A UK citizen at birth by descent.

Still waiting until 39 to apply for a passport seems a bit remiss?

I was thinking about that. I’m admittedly quite a bit older than this gentleman, but I went abroad three times between 16-19, then not until my youngest child was 5, when I was 30. And I could afford it. So maybe waiting until almost 40 isn’t so strange.

OldKingCole

brendan16 said:

surby said:

Sandpit said:

Richard?

For now Rudd seems safe, mainly because the opposition are arguing with each other about how racist they are - as opposed to expending their energies on their political opponents the week before the local elections.

The main reason Rudd will be safe is because she is not the architect of the hostile environment policy. The real architect is hiding behind her.

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only problem is that due to our appalling record keeping and systems we seem to have no idea who is legally here and who is here illegally. And that is the fault of Home Secretaries for decades.

Not entirely the fault of Home Secs. The rules have changed several times, although, of course said Home Sec’s should have looked at/been aware of the consequences of said rule changes.

AlastairMeeks

Theresa May likes dull appointments when seeking to douse fires. David Lidington might fit the bill.

FF43

brendan16 said:

surby said:

Sandpit said:

Richard?

For now Rudd seems safe, mainly because the opposition are arguing with each other about how racist they are - as opposed to expending their energies on their political opponents the week before the local elections.

The main reason Rudd will be safe is because she is not the architect of the hostile environment policy. The real architect is hiding behind her.

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only problem is that due to our appalling record keeping and systems we seem to have no idea who is legally here and who is here illegally. And that is the fault of Home Secretaries for decades.

Feature, not a bug. If you are accurate in your admissions you don't need hostility. The only purpose of hostility is to target people who are potentially legal that you want to discourage. Although previous home secretaries have some responsibility, Theresa May is the main culprit of what we are seeing with Windrush

FF43

brendan16 said:

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

This seems extraordinary - he has a document issued by a British consulate as evidence of birth and his parents were serving in the UK armed forces on duty when he was born in Germany. Surely there must be countless records.

Does he have one of his parents birth certificates? If his parents were British when he was born he is British by descent anyway.

This surely is a cock up by officials again - there is no question he is entitled to a UK passport as he is A UK citizen at birth by descent.

Still waiting until 39 to apply for a passport seems a bit remiss?

Policy, not implementation.

RobD

FF43 said:

brendan16 said:

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

This seems extraordinary - he has a document issued by a British consulate as evidence of birth and his parents were serving in the UK armed forces on duty when he was born in Germany. Surely there must be countless records.

Does he have one of his parents birth certificates? If his parents were British when he was born he is British by descent anyway.

This surely is a cock up by officials again - there is no question he is entitled to a UK passport as he is A UK citizen at birth by descent.

Still waiting until 39 to apply for a passport seems a bit remiss?

Policy, not implementation.

I think you are overestimating the abilities of the Home Office

Roger

If the photo on the front of the Guardian is anything to go by she should quit for her own good. Gove is so unpopular If he takes her place I can only see this as being a lucky break for Labour

Chelyabinsk

FF43 said:

brendan16 said:

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only purpose of hostility is to target people who are potentially legal that you want to discourage.

No, the purpose of hostility is to target people who might be tempted to come here illegally in the hope that inefficient bureaucracy and a soft-hearted public will permit them to stay. By making it clear that there will be no bending of the rules, and that they will be deported promptly and inefficiently, you prevent them from making the journey in the first place. This is what Hungary accomplished when they built a border fence (crossings down by 4,500 a day), what Australia accomplished through the "stop the boats" policy (illegal arrivals down by 90%), and what Trump accomplished without even building the wall (dropped 65% from his inauguration).

kle4

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Recidivist said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Recidivist said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.

N.

Labour isn't my party. I've just spotted that this whole anti-semitism thing is being orchestrated by their enemies.

evidence for this utter bollocks?

Just open your eyes.

Translation = none

Translation = Just because you lack critical thinking skills doesn't require me to teach them to you.

you made the claim - back it up

You know you can't

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The idea the 'whole' thing (your emphasis) is made up or orchestrated by opponents doesn't stack up to the reality of the leader's own statements on the matter. It defies all logic that a party leader would admit their own party has a problem with anti-semitism if it were not the case, there is no advantage to be gained in pretending to accept that. And that opponents will indeed seek to take advantage of that problem, and whatever dispute over the exact extent of the problem, or whether others have problems (certainly other parties need to be very vigilant of their own affairs) does not make that any less implausible. Jeremy Corbyn admitted to a problem which doesn't exist because...?

Preposterous

williamglenn

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

brendan16 said:

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only purpose of hostility is to target people who are potentially legal that you want to discourage.

No, the purpose of hostility is to target people who might be tempted to come here illegally in the hope that inefficient bureaucracy and a soft-hearted public will permit them to stay. By making it clear that there will be no bending of the rules, and that they will be deported promptly and inefficiently, you prevent them from making the journey in the first place. This is what Hungary accomplished when they built a border fence (crossings down by 4,500 a day), what Australia accomplished through the "stop the boats" policy (illegal arrivals down by 90%), and what Trump accomplished without even building the wall (dropped 65% from his inauguration).

Do you work for the Home Office?

rottenborough

Asda and Sainsbury's in merger talks. BBC

Nigelb

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

brendan16 said:

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only purpose of hostility is to target people who are potentially legal that you want to discourage.

No, the purpose of hostility is to target people who might be tempted to come here illegally in the hope that inefficient bureaucracy and a soft-hearted public will permit them to stay. By making it clear that there will be no bending of the rules, and that they will be deported promptly and inefficiently...

You have the inefficient bit right, the ‘promptly’ not so much.
What a confused set of rules, inefficient bureaucracy, and hostile environment together create is the likelihood of serious problems for those who have the right to remain as well as those who don’t.

oldpolitics

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

ydoethur

Now I have seen everything.

An O'Sullivan miscue when in prime position.

ydoethur

And O'Sullivan is out.

Roger

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Shouldn't they rest on Saturdays?

Big_G_NorthWales

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Nothing to do with me !!!!!!

Chelyabinsk

williamglenn said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

brendan16 said:

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only purpose of hostility is to target people who are potentially legal that you want to discourage.

No, the purpose of hostility is to target people who might be tempted to come here illegally in the hope that inefficient bureaucracy and a soft-hearted public will permit them to stay. By making it clear that there will be no bending of the rules, and that they will be deported promptly and inefficiently, you prevent them from making the journey in the first place. This is what Hungary accomplished when they built a border fence (crossings down by 4,500 a day), what Australia accomplished through the "stop the boats" policy (illegal arrivals down by 90%), and what Trump accomplished without even building the wall (dropped 65% from his inauguration).

Do you work for the Home Office?

I'm relieved the only part of my post you were able to take issue with was a two-letter typographical mistake. 'Hostile environment' is the 'broken windows' policy applied to international migration: those who decry it play into the hands of the organised criminals who make fortunes out of people smuggling, just as effectively as those who decried 'stop and search' created the situation we now see in London.

Nigelb said:

You have the inefficient bit right, the ‘promptly’ not so much.
What a confused set of rules, inefficient bureaucracy, and hostile environment together create is the likelihood of serious problems for those who have the right to remain as well as those who don’t.

If the people who were complaining about 'hostile environment' were also arguing for a more efficient review and deportation system and a simpler set of guidelines as to who was allowed to settle here, they'd have a point. Unfortunately, they tend to argue the polar opposite: in many cases, they support policies such as amnesties which would increase the rate of illegal immigration.

Scrapheap_as_was

Tracey Crouch....

https://twitter.com/edballs/status/990250279214960641

williamglenn

Chelyabinsk said:

williamglenn said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

brendan16 said:

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only purpose of hostility is to target people who are potentially legal that you want to discourage.

No, the purpose of hostility is to target people who might be tempted to come here illegally in the hope that inefficient bureaucracy and a soft-hearted public will permit them to stay. By making it clear that there will be no bending of the rules, and that they will be deported promptly and inefficiently, you prevent them from making the journey in the first place. This is what Hungary accomplished when they built a border fence (crossings down by 4,500 a day), what Australia accomplished through the "stop the boats" policy (illegal arrivals down by 90%), and what Trump accomplished without even building the wall (dropped 65% from his inauguration).

Do you work for the Home Office?

I'm relieved the only part of my post you were able to take issue with was a two-letter typographical mistake. 'Hostile environment' is the 'broken windows' policy applied to international migration: those who decry it play into the hands of the organised criminals who make fortunes out of people smuggling, just as effectively as those who decried 'stop and search' created the situation we now see in London.

Nigelb said:

You have the inefficient bit right, the ‘promptly’ not so much.
What a confused set of rules, inefficient bureaucracy, and hostile environment together create is the likelihood of serious problems for those who have the right to remain as well as those who don’t.

If the people who were complaining about 'hostile environment' were also arguing for a more efficient review and deportation system and a simpler set of guidelines as to who was allowed to settle here, they'd have a point. Unfortunately, they tend to argue the polar opposite: in many cases, they support policies such as amnesties which would increase the rate of illegal immigration.

You seem to be defending your own version of what a hostile environment for illegal immigration would look like rather than the reality of a policy which deliberately uses bureaucratic incompetence as a blunt tool.

oldpolitics

Roger said:

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Shouldn't they rest on Saturdays?

Classy.

SandyRentool

The Tories should be looking for a nasty piece of work to take over at the Home Office.

It has to be Esther McVey.

AlastairMeeks

SandyRentool said:

The Tories should be looking for a nasty piece of work to take over at the Home Office.

It has to be Esther McVey.

Good value at 16/1, I’d say.

MaxPB

I think the government needs to hold on to Rudd, it ties her to the government's Brexit position. She's a bit useless, but tbh, the Home Office is full of a bunch of duffers, she fits in well.

The only way I think it would be good for Rudd to go would be for Gove to take her place, for Fox to take Gove's job and for Kwasi to get the International trade role.

surby

SandyRentool said:

The Tories should be looking for a nasty piece of work to take over at the Home Office.

It has to be Esther McVey.

Very few are as nasty as T May. The submarine was a good name.

surby

Very few talking about the massive 0.1% growth.

malcolmg

brendan16 said:

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

This seems extraordinary - he has a document issued by a British consulate as evidence of birth and his parents were serving in the UK armed forces on duty when he was born in Germany. Surely there must be countless records.

Does he have one of his parents birth certificates? If his parents were British when he was born he is British by descent anyway.

This surely is a cock up by officials again - there is no question he is entitled to a UK passport as he is A UK citizen at birth by descent.

Still waiting until 39 to apply for a passport seems a bit remiss?

Why is it remiss, if he had no need for one why apply.

Morris_Dancer

F1: some ideas for the race, but waiting for a few more things to appear. Tricky to call given how it went last year.

rottenborough

SandyRentool said:

The Tories should be looking for a nasty piece of work to take over at the Home Office.

It has to be Esther McVey.

What a choice for her, if that's offered. The career-ending chalice of the Home Office, or the career ending clusterf*** that is UC at DWP. Hmmm...

AlastairMeeks

malcolmg said:

brendan16 said:

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

This seems extraordinary - he has a document issued by a British consulate as evidence of birth and his parents were serving in the UK armed forces on duty when he was born in Germany. Surely there must be countless records.

Does he have one of his parents birth certificates? If his parents were British when he was born he is British by descent anyway.

This surely is a cock up by officials again - there is no question he is entitled to a UK passport as he is A UK citizen at birth by descent.

Still waiting until 39 to apply for a passport seems a bit remiss?

Why is it remiss, if he had no need for one why apply.

Quite. My mother first got one in her late forties. Not everyone wants to travel abroad much.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/990265378814283776

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, indeed, though I have one for ID purposes, and others do likewise.

AndyJS

More problems for Rudd:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/990232951672770561

Pulpstar

Promotion in the offing for Gavin Williamson ?

Sean_F

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/990265378814283776

No point tabling a vote of confidence unless you can win it.

Nigelb

Chelyabinsk said:

williamglenn said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

brendan16 said:

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only purpose of hostility is to target people who are potentially legal that you want to discourage.

No, the purpose of hostility is to target people who might be tempted to come here illegally in the hope that inefficient bureaucracy and a soft-hearted public will permit them to stay. By making it clear that there will be no bending of the rules, and that they will be deported promptly and inefficiently, you prevent them from making the journey in the first place. This is what Hungary accomplished when they built a border fence (crossings down by 4,500 a day), what Australia accomplished through the "stop the boats" policy (illegal arrivals down by 90%), and what Trump accomplished without even building the wall (dropped 65% from his inauguration).

Do you work for the Home Office?

I'm relieved the only part of my post you were able to take issue with was a two-letter typographical mistake. 'Hostile environment' is the 'broken windows' policy applied to international migration: those who decry it play into the hands of the organised criminals who make fortunes out of people smuggling, just as effectively as those who decried 'stop and search' created the situation we now see in London.

Nigelb said:

You have the inefficient bit right, the ‘promptly’ not so much.
What a confused set of rules, inefficient bureaucracy, and hostile environment together create is the likelihood of serious problems for those who have the right to remain as well as those who don’t.

If the people who were complaining about 'hostile environment' were also arguing for a more efficient review and deportation system and a simpler set of guidelines as to who was allowed to settle here, they'd have a point. Unfortunately, they tend to argue the polar opposite: in many cases, they support policies such as amnesties which would increase the rate of illegal immigration.

That really doesn’t answer any of my points about the reality of the system.

felix

Roger said:

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Shouldn't they rest on Saturdays?

Do tell us why Roger - then we can all laugh about it.

felix

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/990265378814283776

I see Adonis is off the wall again.....

felix

SandyRentool said:

The Tories should be looking for a nasty piece of work to take over at the Home Office.

It has to be Esther McVey.

Not if McDonnell gets his way.

Stereotomy

brendan16 said:

surby said:

Sandpit said:

Richard?

For now Rudd seems safe, mainly because the opposition are arguing with each other about how racist they are - as opposed to expending their energies on their political opponents the week before the local elections.

The main reason Rudd will be safe is because she is not the architect of the hostile environment policy. The real architect is hiding behind her.

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only problem is that due to our appalling record keeping and systems we seem to have no idea who is legally here and who is here illegally. And that is the fault of Home Secretaries for decades.

Don't get hung up on the name. The problem is how this is affecting legal immigrants. Whether or not that's caused by bad historical record keeping, the answer clearly isn't to assume that any gaps in the records are illegal immigrants then give a ludicrously high standard of evidence to prove otherwise and no assistance in doing so. That's what "hostile environment" had actually meant under this government.

MikeSmithson

felix said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/990265378814283776

I see Adonis is off the wall again.....

In the absence of an effective LOTO Adonis is filling the gap.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: some ideas for the race, but waiting for a few more things to appear. Tricky to call given how it went last year.

I think the value is going to be in predicting which outsiders get points. If it’s wet and windy they might as well draw lots for them.

Raikkonen (on a contra strategy) at 22 (Betfair) for the win might be value.
Safety car at 1.25 is probably worth a few quid.
Gasly and Hartley both at 7 for points.

Nigelb

The current mess which is our immigration system is, of course, the responsibility of successive governments. Labour ones since 1997 introduced no less than six bills:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24463873

SandyRentool

MaxPB said:

I think the government needs to hold on to Rudd, it ties her to the government's Brexit position. She's a bit useless, but tbh, the Home Office is full of a bunch of duffers, she fits in well.

The only way I think it would be good for Rudd to go would be for Gove to take her place, for Fox to take Gove's job and for Kwasi to get the International trade role.

Fox taking over from Gove would be terrible. Gove is the closest we are going to get to Caroline Lucas under the Tories; I'd like him to stay in post for as long as possible.

TGOHF

I doubt May would want Gove at HS - previously his innovate ideas on prison reforms were squashed by the moribund May Andy her turgid approach.

NickPalmer

brendan16 said:

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

This seems extraordinary - he has a document issued by a British consulate as evidence of birth and his parents were serving in the UK armed forces on duty when he was born in Germany. Surely there must be countless records.

Does he have one of his parents birth certificates? If his parents were British when he was born he is British by descent anyway.

This surely is a cock up by officials again - there is no question he is entitled to a UK passport as he is A UK citizen at birth by descent.

Still waiting until 39 to apply for a passport seems a bit remiss?

Quite a few people never have a passport. It's one of those things which seems second nature to many of us and we mistakenly think everyone has.

MikeSmithson

Pulpstar said:

Promotion in the offing for Gavin Williamson ?

That has a ring of truth to it. He's Theresa's blue-eyed boy. I can't find any odds on him

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, I will be mentioning that SC bet, although the phrase in my draft is "That’s a bit of a weak-kneed, bed-wetting sort of bet (I don’t like short odds) although it will probably come off."

Raikkonen to win is an interesting bet. My view (lots of retirements) accords with yours, but I was looking more at Not To Be Classified. Going to wait a short while, but at the moment thinking of picking DNFs.

Nigelb

Wikipedia is seriously effed up on the details, being fairly comprehensive up until 2010:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_UK_immigration_control
And then....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office_hostile_environment_policy

Ishmael_Z

felix said:

Roger said:

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Shouldn't they rest on Saturdays?

Do tell us why Roger - then we can all laugh about it.

Roger's joke is going down as well as a ham and pineapple pizza at a PB bar mitzvah. He is however (as I learnt last week) ethnically qualified to make jokes about Sabbath observance, if he wants to.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Smithson, I was going to helpfully suggest Betfair's market, but, rather uselessly, it doesn't have Williamson as an option.

Ishmael_Z

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Smithson, I was going to helpfully suggest Betfair's market, but, rather uselessly, it doesn't have Williamson as an option.

Am I labouring under some massive delusion over the meaning of "12/1 bar?"

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Z, I have no idea what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Floater

NickPalmer said:

brendan16 said:

OldKingCole said:

Just when you thought it was all calming down.

A father denied a passport after being unable to prove he is a British citizen has said time is running out to take his family on their first trip abroad.
John Ingram, 39, was born in Germany while his parents were serving in the RAF.
The father of two, living in St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan, said his birth certificate was rejected when he tried to get a passport for a trip to Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43891723

This seems extraordinary - he has a document issued by a British consulate as evidence of birth and his parents were serving in the UK armed forces on duty when he was born in Germany. Surely there must be countless records.

Does he have one of his parents birth certificates? If his parents were British when he was born he is British by descent anyway.

This surely is a cock up by officials again - there is no question he is entitled to a UK passport as he is A UK citizen at birth by descent.

Still waiting until 39 to apply for a passport seems a bit remiss?

Quite a few people never have a passport. It's one of those things which seems second nature to many of us and we mistakenly think everyone has.

My sons girlfriend got her passport at the age of 22 to go on holiday with him

We are taking a 15 year old friend of my son away in the summer and his family had to get him a passport - he had never had one.

Richard_Tyndall

I really like Gove but I don't want him to go anywhere at the moment. He is the first Environment Secretary I can remember who actually seems to want to do something practical about some of the most important issues facing our natural environment.

Omnium

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Smithson, I was going to helpfully suggest Betfair's market, but, rather uselessly, it doesn't have Williamson as an option.

You can get them to add 'runners' by just contacting them. Sometimes it's easy as pie, and sometimes less so.

If you can be bothered then I'd suggest that you ask them to add all of the 'Next PM' runners apart from Rudd.

Some vague attention to these markets can't hurt them I'd suggest. Next Labour leader seems to have turned over almost 0.5m

Pulpstar

Roger said:

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Shouldn't they rest on Saturdays?

Hah !

Floater

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Nothing to see - all a smear apparently

TheScreamingEagles

25% of Brits have never been abroad.

Seems a bit rum to force them to spend circa £80 every ten years to get a passport just so they can a form of photo ID.

FF43

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

brendan16 said:

What I don't quite understand is why we shouldn't have a hostile environment policy to illegal immigrants? Most nations do? Why follow the rules and come here lawfully if there are no consequences to breaking them?

The only purpose of hostility is to target people who are potentially legal that you want to discourage.

No, the purpose of hostility is to target people who might be tempted to come here illegally in the hope that inefficient bureaucracy and a soft-hearted public will permit them to stay. By making it clear that there will be no bending of the rules, and that they will be deported promptly and inefficiently, you prevent them from making the journey in the first place. This is what Hungary accomplished when they built a border fence (crossings down by 4,500 a day), what Australia accomplished through the "stop the boats" policy (illegal arrivals down by 90%), and what Trump accomplished without even building the wall (dropped 65% from his inauguration).

The Hostile Immigration Environment was launched by Theresa May in 2012 to address the perception there were too many immigrants. The policy is aimed at making immigrants unwelcome so they don't come in the first place. The vast majority of immigrants come here legally and if they become illegal it's largely because their application to stay was rejected and they overstay. You become illegal if a UKBA official says you are and they are working to the same hostile immigration policy. Systems that make a clear and accurate distinction between stayers and leavers don't need hostility, they need efficiency. Hostility is targeted at those that might be legal. It keeps the numbers down and saves a UKBA decision later.

If people think immigration is bad, they might think measures to reduce it are tackling illegal immigration, but the distinction is not clear. You reduce immigration by making it illegal. The hostile immigration environment plays a big role in this. The more difficult you make it to be legal, the more illegal immigration you get. It's a reinforcing cycle. The consequences are people who otherwise clearly have the right to be here and are now illegal. Ie Windrush. This is by design.

Ishmael_Z

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Z, I have no idea what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Well, 12/1 bar (as in the header) = 12/1 the field = 12/1 any competitor not specifically mentioned above, including G Williamson. I think.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Omnium, cheers (shan't be doing that myself given the small sum I have in my Betfair account, but good to know).

F1: whilst looking forward to the race, I'm rather ambivalent about what to bet on. Hmm.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic it won't be Gove.

Clashed with Mrs May far too many times, when she was given the first opportunity she sacked him from the cabinet and when she was forced to bring him back into the cabinet she gave him one of the lowest ranked cabinet positions.

My money is on Karen Bradley.

TheScreamingEagles

There's many more people listed on the Ladbrokes website, including the likes of Truss, McVey, and Williamson at 16/1.

https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-home-secretary/226781851/

Pulpstar

What price Diane ?

AndyJS

Any polls expected today?

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

What price Diane ?

Abbott? 8/1

Roger

oldpolitics said:

Roger said:

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Shouldn't they rest on Saturdays?

Classy.

......Like coming on here ANONYMOUSLY and boasting of tweeting the names of Labour antsemites from A-Z after previously describing someone as a "Mugabe-loving Jew-hating loony" and then as if the identity politics needed further underlining you sneer at a report because it's written by a 'British Bengali Lawyer'.

Now THAT's classy!

TheScreamingEagles

I'm a bit narked off at OGH.

This was going to be what my morning thread was going to be about.

Pulpstar

The great thing about this market is the winner might not even be amongst Shadsy's listed runners, and you could be waiting a while for a payout. At least past Tuesday I hope.
Make Shadsy's christmas great again

bigjohnowls

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic it won't be Gove.

Clashed with Mrs May far too many times, when she was given the first opportunity she sacked him from the cabinet and when she was forced to bring him back into the cabinet she gave him one of the lowest ranked cabinet positions.

My money is on Karen Bradley.

Couldnt run a football club in an athletics stadium

Omnium

Richard_Tyndall said:

I really like Gove but I don't want him to go anywhere at the moment. He is the first Environment Secretary I can remember who actually seems to want to do something practical about some of the most important issues facing our natural environment.

I thought that about him when he was at education. All he really seemed to have achieved though was annoying teachers who then delivered even less. He then did his Boris-betrayal thing, and whatever the truth there it's hard to think well of him.

AndyJS

TheScreamingEagles said:

25% of Brits have never been abroad.

Seems a bit rum to force them to spend circa £80 every ten years to get a passport just so they can a form of photo ID.

I'm guessing they voted heavily for Brexit and that Remain would have won fairly easily with the other 75%.

TheScreamingEagles

AndyJS said:

Any polls expected today?

I completed an Opinium VI poll on Thursday, so we might see that in the Observer.

brendan16

AndyJS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

25% of Brits have never been abroad.

Seems a bit rum to force them to spend circa £80 every ten years to get a passport just so they can a form of photo ID.

I'm guessing they voted heavily for Brexit and that Remain would have won fairly easily with the other 75%.

Carry on sneering!

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

The great thing about this market is the winner might not even be amongst Shadsy's listed runners, and you could be waiting a while for a payout. At least past Tuesday I hope.
Make Shadsy's christmas great again

I wonder what the odds on Amber Rudd as next Home Secretary were in say 2014?

I suspect she wasn't even listed.

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm a bit narked off at OGH.

This was going to be what my morning thread was going to be about.

Perhaps you should do a thread on why the PFA should use AV when deciding player of the year.

TheScreamingEagles

TheScreamingEagles said:

25% of Brits have never been abroad.

Seems a bit rum to force them to spend circa £80 every ten years to get a passport just so they can a form of photo ID.

My apologies for posting fake news, it is 8% not 25%.

Nearly a quarter of British adults have never been on a plane, a new study has revealed.

A fifth (20 per cent) say they have never visited a beach in their life, 25 per cent have never visited a European capital city and 41 per cent say they've never tried foreign food.

One in ten Brits (eight per cent) have stayed in the UK their entire life and never once been abroad while a quarter (22 per cent) have never travelled on an aeroplane.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4009336/Nearly-quarter-Brits-never-plane-visited-European-capital.html

TGOHF

https://twitter.com/greghands/status/989103754850062336?s=21

AndyJS

brendan16 said:

AndyJS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

25% of Brits have never been abroad.

Seems a bit rum to force them to spend circa £80 every ten years to get a passport just so they can a form of photo ID.

I'm guessing they voted heavily for Brexit and that Remain would have won fairly easily with the other 75%.

Carry on sneering!

It was just an observation, not sneering.

AndyJS

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

Any polls expected today?

I completed an Opinium VI poll on Thursday, so we might see that in the Observer.

Hope so.

Roger

Ishmael_Z said:

felix said:

Roger said:

oldpolitics said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

But it is the people who are claiming that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-semitism who should provide the proof of what, if true, would be a very serious accusation. But it is all inuendo and insinuation.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn making up innuendo and insinuation against his own party? He is the most prominent person claiming they have a problem.

The #LabourAntisemitism Twitter account is naming Labour Antisemites one at a time, on an A to Z basis, alphabetically by first name.

They have been going for three days and so far have reached G - and that's only the ones who are stupid enough to be antisemitic in public using their real names.

Shouldn't they rest on Saturdays?

Do tell us why Roger - then we can all laugh about it.

Roger's joke is going down as well as a ham and pineapple pizza at a PB bar mitzvah. He is however (as I learnt last week) ethnically qualified to make jokes about Sabbath observance, if he wants to.

Just think of all those Woody Allen jokes we cant use anymore like 'What's the Jewish dilemma?"

Free bacon.

Omnium

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Omnium, cheers (shan't be doing that myself given the small sum I have in my Betfair account, but good to know).

F1: whilst looking forward to the race, I'm rather ambivalent about what to bet on. Hmm.

Really do badger them if you want a person listed. I'm sure PB as a whole would welcome more attention to their politics markets. Very-long-term markets are precisely those which they will do best at.

BannedInParis

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/greghands/status/989103754850062336?s=21

This is my total lack of surprise

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Z, ah, right. That's the Ladbrokes market, I was talking about the Betfair one.

Anyway, written the pre-race ramble. Just need to check it to avoid any arrors.