Wow. Just wow. What a year 2016 is proving to be for political nerds.
Stepping back a bit: I posted a couple of weeks ago that I thought the most likely trajectory for UKIP over the rest of this parliament wasn't that it would thrive because of problems in the government's Brexit process, but that it would fragment under the weight of its own contradictions, now that the one uniting factor is history.
Surely it is a statement of the blindingly obvious that any guarantee for EU citizens rights to remain in the UK is conditional upon the EU reciprocating for our citizens? Why should the government not be concerned to make sure our citizens rights are respected in return?
Not for Remoaners.
Point spectacularly missed: if it's really a quid pro quo, then this could be handled simply by separating this off from the rest of the negotiations. Discuss and agree now the reciprocal citizenship rights to avoid stress and unpleasantness for millions of people, keep people calm and generate plenty of goodwill in the run up to the Brexit negotiations.
Instead, all Fox has done in a spectacularly callous and disrespectful way is simply to cause insecurity and stress for millions of people. I'm ashamed of him, and the Tories. I appreciate he was just Tory Conference grandstanding, but this is cackhandedness of the highest order. It didn't need to be done like this, whether you want Brexit or not. It's insane. This isn't diplomacy, it's moving your hostages to the window.
That is factually correct, since EU countries will blackmail us on the status of british nationals you need to hold EU nationals as hostages too.
Indeed. It is impossible for a UK government to hold any other position until the rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed.
The rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed by virtue of our membership of the EU. Until we start negotiations this kind of public statement as a dog whistle to the 'send them home' tendency serves no purpose and is deplorable.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
There is. You can be seriously "leftwing" and socialise the economy with jobs mandated for citizens but no dynamic 'job creation' to as a pull factor.
A major recession would probably do it.
I don't think so. Even in 2009 we had large immigration numbers.
The whole world was in crisis, then, with a lot of places worse hit than us, with housing crashes and big spikes in unemployment, particularly for the young. So no surprise that the UK was seen as something of a safe haven.
I was scratching my head trying to think of something that might bring about a peculiarly British recession,
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Rudd is neither aping the far right nor thwarting it she is merely trying to deliver the manifesto on which this Government was elected. So what leadership do you propose.....telling the electorate "it was all wrong we didn't mean it". And for good measure you are all racist.
Wow. Just wow. What a year 2016 is proving to be for political nerds.
Stepping back a bit: I posted a couple of weeks ago that I thought the most likely trajectory for UKIP over the rest of this parliament wasn't that it would thrive because of problems in the government's Brexit process, but that it would fragment under the weight of its own contradictions, now that the one uniting factor is history.
It's amazing that UKIP is still at the same level as before, 13-16%, UKIP voters are more immovable than Corbyn.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Personally, this regime still remains far preferable to the Cameron/Osborne regime -- although, on immigration, I would prefer that they concentrated on just cutting the numbers of immigrants who come to Britain in the first place, rather than these silly proposals to harass migrants who are already settled here and building lives here ("naming and shaming" companies or landlords who take them on).
Question: Was Liam Fox put there by May to be sacrificed later? If she's looking for some sort of compromise with the EU that might not be to the liking of some of the Brexit ultras then, if he storms off in a huff or is axed, this could be used to demonstrate that (a) the Prime Minister is in charge and her will be done, and (b) whatever deal she does get is something to be welcomed by moderate folk, because the headbangers don't like it (and aren't we all lucky that she, not they, happens to be in charge?)
If a semi-formal arrangement is created with the DUP then this would give May an effective majority of a little over 30 (not counting the Labour leavers for certain crucial votes) which would allow the Government to survive a small number of harder Right MPs going postal.
David Davis is a reliable Brexiteer, he's the one actually organising the whole thing, and his presence ought to help to allay backsliding fears from the pro-Brexit wing of the party. Liam Fox, on the other hand, has little to do but preliminary work before we actually leave the EU - a job that could readily be passed by the relevant civil servants into a safer pair of hands, were he to fall on his sword at some point in the next year or so...
That's the first time I have read the word reliable and David Davis in that same sentence - even on PB.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
There is. You can be seriously "leftwing" and socialise the economy with jobs mandated for citizens but no dynamic 'job creation' to as a pull factor.
A major recession would probably do it.
I don't think so. Even in 2009 we had large immigration numbers.
The whole world was in crisis, then, with a lot of places worse hit than us, with housing crashes and big spikes in unemployment, particularly for the young. So no surprise that the UK was seen as something of a safe haven.
I was scratching my head trying to think of something that might bring about a peculiarly British recession,
That is factually correct, since EU countries will blackmail us on the status of british nationals you need to hold EU nationals as hostages too.
Indeed. It is impossible for a UK government to hold any other position until the rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed.
The rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed by virtue of our membership of the EU. Until we start negotiations this kind of public statement as a dog whistle to the 'send them home' tendency serves no purpose and is deplorable.
Says the man who supports the odious racist Trump
Trump isn't running to lead the UK and if he were I would have a different view. I certainly don't support all of his platform, but there's enough there for me to judge that it would be a net positive for the rest of the world for him to win instead of Clinton.
Wow. Just wow. What a year 2016 is proving to be for political nerds.
Stepping back a bit: I posted a couple of weeks ago that I thought the most likely trajectory for UKIP over the rest of this parliament wasn't that it would thrive because of problems in the government's Brexit process, but that it would fragment under the weight of its own contradictions, now that the one uniting factor is history.
It's amazing that UKIP is still at the same level as before, 13-16%, UKIP voters are more immovable than Corbyn.
To the extent that it is an "up yours" vote and therefore mostly a commentary on the other parties, they may not be following the twists and turns of UKIP politics that closely. Although I would be surprised if this renewed chaos doesn't hit them a bit.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Rudd is neither aping the far right nor thwarting it she is merely trying to deliver the manifesto on which this Government was elected. So what leadership do you propose.....telling the electorate "it was all wrong we didn't mean it". And for good measure you are all racist.
Didn't notice the bit in the Tory manifesto that said companies would be named and shamed for employing foreigners. Can you point it out? Is that really what Leavers voted for? I don't think so.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Her mandate for it was Brexit, the voters rejected warnings from multinationals and Cameron about the economy and voted to control immigration
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Personally, this regime still remains far preferable to the Cameron/Osborne regime -- although, on immigration, I would prefer that they concentrated on just cutting the numbers of immigrants who come to Britain in the first place, rather than these silly proposals to harass migrants who are already settled here and building lives here ("naming and shaming" companies or landlords who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years.
But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour.
Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Personally, this regime still remains far preferable to the Cameron/Osborne regime -- although, on immigration, I would prefer that they concentrated on just cutting the numbers of immigrants who come to Britain in the first place, rather than these silly proposals to harass migrants who are already settled here and building lives here ("naming and shaming" companies or landlords who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years.
But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour.
Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Surely it is a statement of the blindingly obvious that any guarantee for EU citizens rights to remain in the UK is conditional upon the EU reciprocating for our citizens? Why should the government not be concerned to make sure our citizens rights are respected in return?
Not for Remoaners.
Point spectacularly missed: if it's really a quid pro quo, then this could be handled simply by separating this off from the rest of the negotiations. Discuss and agree now the reciprocal citizenship rights to avoid stress and unpleasantness for millions of people, keep people calm and generate plenty of goodwill in the run up to the Brexit negotiations.
Instead, all Fox has done in a spectacularly callous and disrespectful way is simply to cause insecurity and stress for millions of people. I'm ashamed of him, and the Tories. I appreciate he was just Tory Conference grandstanding, but this is cackhandedness of the highest order. It didn't need to be done like this, whether you want Brexit or not. It's insane. This isn't diplomacy, it's moving your hostages to the window.
"We have no intention of deporting people or setting about treating people who through no fault of their own are here during a transition. But what we have to do is we have to also keep in mind the rights of British citizens abroad. So we’ll fix the whole thing together and I am absolutely 100% sure we’ll be able to do that and there will be no difficulty for anybody…
If we take the whole thing together, there’ll be nobody taken hostage, nobody used as a bargaining chip. I suspect it’ll be the first thing on the agenda when we actually start the discussion.”
"Just days into her leadership Ms James was verbally attacked and spat at in Waterloo station. That incident is said to have had a major impact on her decision. A source said that she had been left "traumatised" by the experience, adding: "Diane doesn’t really want to talk about it because I think she is concerned that it will encourage others to try it again."
That is factually correct, since EU countries will blackmail us on the status of british nationals you need to hold EU nationals as hostages too.
Indeed. It is impossible for a UK government to hold any other position until the rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed.
But it's an absurd position. Even if we were going to do mass deportations of EU citizens, how would we do it? We don't know who they are, where they live or where they came from. In any case many will be eligible for UK citizenship.
Same would be true of UK citizens in the EU.
Wouldn't be too complicated. All firms in the UK are required by law to keep a copy of "proof of right to work in the UK" for all employees. If that proof is an EU passport and if the EU citizens lost their right to work in the UK then all companies could be instructed to take action accordingly.
I think this would be an utterly terrible idea and am not proposing it ... but its not impossible.
There is now gigantic chasm on the centre ground. The Corbynistas have reaped what they have sown, allowing the Tories to happily march off into what as recently a few months ago would have been considered a frothing rightwing wilderness.
The process the Newsweek piece suggests "the membership need to come to a place where they've accepted that it's not working for themselves". They don't believe the polls, don't know how to interpret mid-term ones and their information channels cherry-pick the ones they see, so it's hard to see how they get there without an actual general election defeat.
Question: Was Liam Fox put there by May to be sacrificed later? If she's looking for some sort of compromise with the EU that might not be to the liking of some of the Brexit ultras then, if he storms off in a huff or is axed, this could be used to demonstrate that (a) the Prime Minister is in charge and her will be done, and (b) whatever deal she does get is something to be welcomed by moderate folk, because the headbangers don't like it (and aren't we all lucky that she, not they, happens to be in charge?)
If a semi-formal arrangement is created with the DUP then this would give May an effective majority of a little over 30 (not counting the Labour leavers for certain crucial votes) which would allow the Government to survive a small number of harder Right MPs going postal.
David Davis is a reliable Brexiteer, he's the one actually organising the whole thing, and his presence ought to help to allay backsliding fears from the pro-Brexit wing of the party. Liam Fox, on the other hand, has little to do but preliminary work before we actually leave the EU - a job that could readily be passed by the relevant civil servants into a safer pair of hands, were he to fall on his sword at some point in the next year or so...
Maybe the DUP should become the Conservatives' Northern Ireland wing.
If I remember correctly, the UUP did a tie-in with the Tories some years back. It was not terribly good for their health. Sylvia Hermon said "I am not a Tory" and became an independent. The party ended up winning no Commons seats at all at the following general election.
Question: Was Liam Fox put there by May to be sacrificed later? If she's looking for some sort of compromise with the EU that might not be to the liking of some of the Brexit ultras then, if he storms off in a huff or is axed, this could be used to demonstrate that (a) the Prime Minister is in charge and her will be done, and (b) whatever deal she does get is something to be welcomed by moderate folk, because the headbangers don't like it (and aren't we all lucky that she, not they, happens to be in charge?)
If a semi-formal arrangement is created with the DUP then this would give May an effective majority of a little over 30 (not counting the Labour leavers for certain crucial votes) which would allow the Government to survive a small number of harder Right MPs going postal.
David Davis is a reliable Brexiteer, he's the one actually organising the whole thing, and his presence ought to help to allay backsliding fears from the pro-Brexit wing of the party. Liam Fox, on the other hand, has little to do but preliminary work before we actually leave the EU - a job that could readily be passed by the relevant civil servants into a safer pair of hands, were he to fall on his sword at some point in the next year or so...
So Boris is the front man, Davis does the work and Fox gets the blame? Sounds credible to me. At least now they all have clear roles.
The problem is that they are all useless.
Yes, a trio of third-rate comedians in charge of Britain's future.
@MichaelLCrick: Farage & co blocked Suzanne Evans standing for leader by suspending her from membership for 6 mins; must be furious she's now free to stand
I think Carswell is also allowed now to stand.
Carswell's libertarian, pro immigration stance is not in touch with the mood of the times and the voters UKIP needs to appeal to
What difference do you see between the new UKIP you desire and the old BNP?
I never said I desired it, I voted Remain if you remember, just that UKIP obviously have far more voters to appeal to who are hostile to immigration than wealthy libertarians who want to slash the state to almost nothing
Yes about half a million votes was peak BNP from memory. That leaves 3.5 million votes for UKIP to lose.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
I can conceive of a successful liberal nation outside the EU. But not one that was taken outside the EU by pandering to xenophobia.
Hence the cleft stick that wibbly wobbly Leavers find themselves in. They want an EEA solution. But that's incompatible with the Leave vote we got. So they flail around seeking a route to their preferred outcome.
It isn't there. We're stuck with inward-looking Brexit. That was obvious from the start to anyone with eyes to see. The useful idiots were idiots. I would say that it serves them right, but the entire country has been impoverished.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Rudd is neither aping the far right nor thwarting it she is merely trying to deliver the manifesto on which this Government was elected. So what leadership do you propose.....telling the electorate "it was all wrong we didn't mean it". And for good measure you are all racist.
Didn't notice the bit in the Tory manifesto that said companies would be named and shamed for employing foreigners. Can you point it out? Is that really what Leavers voted for? I don't think so.
Did Amber Rudd say that employers would be "named and shamed" in her speech, or was this announced elsewhere? Genuine question.
Wouldn't be too complicated. All firms in the UK are required by law to keep a copy of "proof of right to work in the UK" for all employees. If that proof is an EU passport and if the EU citizens lost their right to work in the UK then all companies could be instructed to take action accordingly..
The burden should be on the government. If the individual has a valid National Insurance number - which the employer should be able to check with a simple web-based application - that should be incontrovertible proof that the employee is legally employable in the UK.
I really don't see the difficulty, or any need for employers to be harassed, have to go though hoops to check eligibility which they are ill-equipped to do, and treated as criminals if they make an honest mistake.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Personally, this regime still remains far preferable to the Cameron/Osborne regime -- although, on immigration, I would prefer that they concentrated on just cutting the numbers of immigrants who come to Britain in the first place, rather than these silly proposals to harass migrants who are already settled here and building lives here ("naming and shaming" companies or landlords who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years. But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour. Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Actually I think this could be the day the Tories lost the next election.
"Just days into her leadership Ms James was verbally attacked and spat at in Waterloo station. That incident is said to have had a major impact on her decision. A source said that she had been left "traumatised" by the experience, adding: "Diane doesn’t really want to talk about it because I think she is concerned that it will encourage others to try it again."
Was it one of those kinder gentler politics types?
That is factually correct, since EU countries will blackmail us on the status of british nationals you need to hold EU nationals as hostages too.
Indeed. It is impossible for a UK government to hold any other position until the rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed.
The rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed by virtue of our membership of the EU. Until we start negotiations this kind of public statement as a dog whistle to the 'send them home' tendency serves no purpose and is deplorable.
Says the man who supports the odious racist Trump
Trump isn't running to lead the UK and if he were I would have a different view. I certainly don't support all of his platform, but there's enough there for me to judge that it would be a net positive for the rest of the world for him to win instead of Clinton.
The guy is a straight up, odious, unstable racist. Whom you wish to be in control of the world's most powerful country.
@MichaelLCrick: Farage & co blocked Suzanne Evans standing for leader by suspending her from membership for 6 mins; must be furious she's now free to stand
I think Carswell is also allowed now to stand.
Carswell's libertarian, pro immigration stance is not in touch with the mood of the times and the voters UKIP needs to appeal to
But he is their only MP, and the only one with some serious standing left in UKIP who hasn't had a go yet as leader, except Nutall.
He would not win even if he ran, Duffy was his candidate in the last leadership race, Nuttall would be a better bet
Someone who was totally unheard of yet beat everyone else and came runner up to a well known candidate? Seems like its entirely plausible that if he ran by himself he could win then if he was running against unknowns like James did.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
I wouldn't. There is no mandate for any such thing.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
A rarity, but I agree with SeanT.
There is no way to get immigration down to target without fiecely right wing policies.
Stop most immigration (including family reunion and students), deport as many asylum seekers as possible, and make recent immigrants unwelcome so that they return from whence they came.
It's amusing that Amber Rudd - whom I've got a lot of time for - has made a seamless transition from being seen as a spineless Osbornite stooge to being seen as an extreme right-winger.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Rudd is neither aping the far right nor thwarting it she is merely trying to deliver the manifesto on which this Government was elected. So what leadership do you propose.....telling the electorate "it was all wrong we didn't mean it". And for good measure you are all racist.
Didn't notice the bit in the Tory manifesto that said companies would be named and shamed for employing foreigners. Can you point it out? Is that really what Leavers voted for? I don't think so.
Did Amber Rudd say that employers would be "named and shamed" in her speech, or was this announced elsewhere? Genuine question.
Not in the extract that was posted here earlier. Given the placement of inverted commas in the Independent (I think?) story, it seems to have been made up by a journalist.
It's amazing that UKIP is still at the same level as before, 13-16%, UKIP voters are more immovable than Corbyn.
The chaos within UKIP hasn't yet percolated through to public consciousness,
Will it ever?
Let's face it, if a voter prioritised competence and stable management over all else, they would never have been voting UKIP in the first place.
Yes, but until the morning of June 24th there was a single factor which herded those votes towards UKIP, and kept the warring factions at least vaguely united in public at least. Now, that factor has gone. The vote, and the party, will fragment.
It's amusing that Amber Rudd - whom I've got a lot of time for - has made a seamless transition from being seen as a spineless Osbornite stooge to being seen as an extreme right-winger.
It's amusing that Amber Rudd - whom I've got a lot of time for - has made a seamless transition from being seen as a spineless Osbornite stooge to being seen as an extreme right-winger.
Her speech didn't seem very convincing. She seems about enthused about these plans as Justine Greening was over grammar schools.
It's amusing that Amber Rudd - whom I've got a lot of time for - has made a seamless transition from being seen as a spineless Osbornite stooge to being seen as an extreme right-winger.
Like the PM herself, it is important to change course:
Find a baying mob with torches and pitchforks and get in front of it.
On topic, who cares? I can't imagine that more than one voter in 100 had any idea who Diane James was or that more than one in 1000 might change their vote over her.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Personally, this regime still remains far preferable to the Cameron/Osborne regime -- although, on immigration, I would prefer that they concentrated on just cutting the numbers of immigrants who come to Britain in the first place, rather than these silly proposals to harass migrants who are already settled here and building lives here ("naming and shaming" companies or landlords who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years. But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour. Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Actually I think this could be the day the Tories lost the next election.
Somehow, I don't think the voters will turn to Corbyn because of their love of free migration.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
The xenophobia is to be found in Leaverstan, not the centre of Remania. Try a pub on the Lincs coast.
It's amusing that Amber Rudd - whom I've got a lot of time for - has made a seamless transition from being seen as a spineless Osbornite stooge to being seen as an extreme right-winger.
Perhaps you have a faible for the spineless?
She never was a spineless stooge. My 66/1 on her being next leader was a bit premature, as things turned out, but there's a good reason why Theresa May has promoted her to (on the official lists) number 3 in the government.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
A rarity, but I agree with SeanT.
There is no way to get immigration down to target without fiecely right wing policies.
Stop most immigration (including family reunion and students), deport as many asylum seekers as possible, and make recent immigrants unwelcome so that they return from whence they came.
How else is it to be done?
Perhaps. But it's based on a false premise that we should be getting it down to that figure.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
I can conceive of a successful liberal nation outside the EU. But not one that was taken outside the EU by pandering to xenophobia.
Hence the cleft stick that wibbly wobbly Leavers find themselves in. They want an EEA solution. But that's incompatible with the Leave vote we got. So they flail around seeking a route to their preferred outcome.
It isn't there. We're stuck with inward-looking Brexit. That was obvious from the start to anyone with eyes to see. The useful idiots were idiots. I would say that it serves them right, but the entire country has been impoverished.
Oh god, just fucking grow up. I know you have issues on this question (apparently) but it's getting dull now. You remind me of my younger daughter, and she's 10, and complaining about Minecraft.
Well you are the prize useful idiot.
You have this fantasy of ultra soft Brexit. It's not going to happen. We're going to end up in a cul de sac of nativist discontent, blaming everyone but ourselves for our increasing irrelevance. This was all entirely predictable and predicted.
It's amazing that UKIP is still at the same level as before, 13-16%, UKIP voters are more immovable than Corbyn.
The chaos within UKIP hasn't yet percolated through to public consciousness,
Will it ever?
Let's face it, if a voter prioritised competence and stable management over all else, they would never have been voting UKIP in the first place.
Yes, but until the morning of June 24th there was a single factor which herded those votes towards UKIP, and kept the warring factions at least vaguely united in public at least. Now, that factor has gone. The vote, and the party, will fragment.
If May really does bring immigration drastically down and create some more grammars many UKIP voters may well return to the Tories. I see Jim Davidson is back at the Tory Conference too on Tuesday at Conference
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
A rarity, but I agree with SeanT.
There is no way to get immigration down to target without fiecely right wing policies.
Stop most immigration (including family reunion and students), deport as many asylum seekers as possible, and make recent immigrants unwelcome so that they return from whence they came.
How else is it to be done?
Perhaps. But it's based on a false premise that we should be getting it down to that figure.
I have never supported the figure, but how else did the PB Tories expect it to be achieved?
The Tories are going to be on 50% in the polls before long at this rate. Absolutely no opposition from either Labour or UKIP, the LDs on 5% in the latest survey.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
I can conceive of a successful liberal nation outside the EU. But not one that was taken outside the EU by pandering to xenophobia.
Hence the cleft stick that wibbly wobbly Leavers find themselves in. They want an EEA solution. But that's incompatible with the Leave vote we got. So they flail around seeking a route to their preferred outcome.
It isn't there. We're stuck with inward-looking Brexit. That was obvious from the start to anyone with eyes to see. The useful idiots were idiots. I would say that it serves them right, but the entire country has been impoverished.
Oh god, just fucking grow up. I know you have issues on this question (apparently) but it's getting dull now. You remind me of my younger daughter, and she's 10, and complaining about Minecraft.
Well you are the prize useful idiot.
You have this fantasy of ultra soft Brexit. It's not going to happen. We're going to end up in a cul de sac of nativist discontent, blaming everyone but ourselves for our increasing irrelevance. This was all entirely predictable and predicted.
I think that neither your nightmares nor Sean T's dreams will come to pass.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
I think it is a ridiculous, harmful target.
So Britain must accept mass unwanted annual immigration, of 300,000, 400,000 - 800,000 - three million - what - what do you think is a limit??? - and all because you, Southam, think targets are "ridiculous and harmful".
Get a grip. What has happened to my normally sane liberal PB friends? People have clearly decided they don't want mass immigration, you either accept this, or you are a kind of lefty Fascist who wants to impose it on them by force, and if they vote against it, you will ignore them, and cancel democracy.
This is a species of insanity.
Liberals have a choice. Do they accept that the voters are entitled to reduce levels of immigration? Or do they abandon democracy to maintain mass immigration?
On Topic, The Times also seem to be hinting that UKIP may have run out of money, that might partly explain the rumours about Nutty Nige founding a New Party.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
As, like me, you spend much of your time in central London, I suspect you might be looking in the wrong places.
On the question of immigration given the will it is easy to control. A simple tick list would suffice. Doctor yes or no, Nurse yes or no, Student intending to go home at the end of you education yes or no. Skilled worker (sorry we have failed to train any in this country we rely on cheap foreign labour) yea or no.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Personally, this regime still remains far preferable to the Cameron/Osborne regime -- although, on immigration, I would prefer that they concentrated on just cutting the numbers of immigrants who come to Britain in the first place, rather than these silly proposals to harass migrants who are already settled here and building lives here ("naming and shaming" companies or landlords who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years. But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour. Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Actually I think this could be the day the Tories lost the next election.
If this is the day the Tories lost the election, it is the day they lost it to UKIP.
Nearly all western nations are swinging quite hard to the right. The UK is no exception.
Theresa "don't hate the state" May's government is becoming a synergy of Gordon Brown and Nigel Farage.
It's right wing, but not in a way Margaret Thatcher would recognise or approve of.
...What has happened to my normally sane liberal PB friends?...
What has happened is that they have allowed themselves, initially for honourable reasons but subsequently for party-political reasons, to be convinced that any suggestion that immigration numbers might be too high is proof of racism.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
I think it is a ridiculous, harmful target.
So Britain must accept mass unwanted annual immigration, of 300,000, 400,000 - 800,000 - three million - what - what do you think is a limit??? - and all because you, Southam, think targets are "ridiculous and harmful".
Get a grip. What has happened to my normally sane liberal PB friends? People have clearly decided they don't want mass immigration, you either accept this, or you are a kind of lefty Fascist who wants to impose it on them by force, and if they vote against it, you will ignore them, and cancel democracy.
This is a species of insanity.
Liberals have a choice. Do they accept that the voters are entitled to reduce levels of immigration? Or do they abandon democracy to maintain mass immigration?
Or do we seek to persuade people that vilifying foreigners and the entities that employ them is not only wrong, but harmful to British interests? As a democrat, that's my preferred option.
@MichaelLCrick: Farage & co blocked Suzanne Evans standing for leader by suspending her from membership for 6 mins; must be furious she's now free to stand
I think Carswell is also allowed now to stand.
Carswell's libertarian, pro immigration stance is not in touch with the mood of the times and the voters UKIP needs to appeal to
But he is their only MP, and the only one with some serious standing left in UKIP who hasn't had a go yet as leader, except Nutall.
He would not win even if he ran, Duffy was his candidate in the last leadership race, Nuttall would be a better bet
Someone who was totally unheard of yet beat everyone else and came runner up to a well known candidate? Seems like its entirely plausible that if he ran by himself he could win then if he was running against unknowns like James did.
Carswell's pro immigration, libertarian agenda is out of tune with the mood of the voters at the moment, let alone the UKIP membership
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
I can conceive of a successful liberal nation outside the EU. But not one that was taken outside the EU by pandering to xenophobia.
Hence the cleft stick that wibbly wobbly Leavers find themselves in. They want an EEA solution. But that's incompatible with the Leave vote we got. So they flail around seeking a route to their preferred outcome.
It isn't there. We're stuck with inward-looking Brexit. That was obvious from the start to anyone with eyes to see. The useful idiots were idiots. I would say that it serves them right, but the entire country has been impoverished.
Oh god, just fucking grow up. I know you have issues on this question (apparently) but it's getting dull now. You remind me of my younger daughter, and she's 10, and complaining about Minecraft.
Well you are the prize useful idiot.
You have this fantasy of ultra soft Brexit. It's not going to happen. We're going to end up in a cul de sac of nativist discontent, blaming everyone but ourselves for our increasing irrelevance. This was all entirely predictable and predicted.
It may be nativist discontent but the rise of Trump, Le Pen, Sarkozy (again), Orban, Hofer, the Swedish Democrats, the AfD, Wilders etc shows it is certainly not a cul de sac
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
I think it is a ridiculous, harmful target.
So Britain must accept mass unwanted annual immigration, of 300,000, 400,000 - 800,000 - three million - what - what do you think is a limit??? - and all because you, Southam, think targets are "ridiculous and harmful".
Get a grip. What has happened to my normally sane liberal PB friends? People have clearly decided they don't want mass immigration, you either accept this, or you are a kind of lefty Fascist who wants to impose it on them by force, and if they vote against it, you will ignore them, and cancel democracy.
This is a species of insanity.
Liberals have a choice. Do they accept that the voters are entitled to reduce levels of immigration? Or do they abandon democracy to maintain mass immigration?
Or do we seek to persuade people that vilifying foreigners and the entities that employ them is not only wrong, but harmful to British interests? As a democrat, that's my preferred option.
People have pretty clearly decided that they want fewer people entering the UK. that's quite plain.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
I think it is a ridiculous, harmful target.
So Britain must accept mass unwanted annual immigration, of 300,000, 400,000 - 800,000 - three million - what - what do you think is a limit??? - and all because you, Southam, think targets are "ridiculous and harmful".
Get a grip. What has happened to my normally sane liberal PB friends? People have clearly decided they don't want mass immigration, you either accept this, or you are a kind of lefty Fascist who wants to impose it on them by force, and if they vote against it, you will ignore them, and cancel democracy.
This is a species of insanity.
This is where you run up against the left's refusal to accept that it is OK to vilify foreigners and the people who employ them, I'm afraid. If that puts us in a minority, so be it. There are certain things you don't compromise on. I accept people want to substantially reduce immigration. I don't think they're right. I'll seek to change minds.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
The xenophobia is to be found in Leaverstan, not the centre of Remania. Try a pub on the Lincs coast.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
"I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here,
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here" how do you know that.
On the question of immigration given the will it is easy to control. A simple tick list would suffice. Doctor yes or no, Nurse yes or no, Student intending to go home at the end of you education yes or no. Skilled worker (sorry we have failed to train any in this country we rely on cheap foreign labour) yea or no.
Tourist yes or no....
Simples
But that's still effectively a points based system that doesn't allow you to control the overall numbers, just the types of people coming in. If the goal is to reduce to 100,000 then that can't be assured.
So you have to add a quota, and after that we turn away all those doctors, nurses and students.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
I wouldn't. There is no mandate for any such thing.
It's not my priority but it was in the government's manifesto. It was also in the 2010 government's manifesto. There is quite patently a mandate for it.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
I think it is a ridiculous, harmful target.
So Britain must accept mass unwanted annual immigration, of 300,000, 400,000 - 800,000 - three million - what - what do you think is a limit??? - and all because you, Southam, think targets are "ridiculous and harmful".
Get a grip. What has happened to my normally sane liberal PB friends? People have clearly decided they don't want mass immigration, you either accept this, or you are a kind of lefty Fascist who wants to impose it on them by force, and if they vote against it, you will ignore them, and cancel democracy.
This is a species of insanity.
Liberals have a choice.
Or do we seek to persuade people that vilifying foreigners and the entities that employ them is not only wrong, but harmful to British interests? As a democrat, that's my preferred option.
People have pretty clearly decided that they want fewer people entering the UK. that's quite plain.
They clearly have, but the making of a sausage is rarely pretty.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Personally, this regime still remains far preferable to the Cameron/Osborne regime -- although, on immigration, I would prefer that they concentrated on just cutting the numbers of immigrants who come to Britain in the first place, rather than these silly proposals to harass migrants who are already settled here and building lives here ("naming and shaming" companies or landlords who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years. But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour. Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Actually I think this could be the day the Tories lost the next election.
If this is the day the Tories lost the election, it is the day they lost it to UKIP.
Nearly all western nations are swinging quite hard to the right. The UK is no exception.
Theresa "don't hate the state" May's government is becoming a synergy of Gordon Brown and Nigel Farage.
It's right wing, but not in a way Margaret Thatcher would recognise or approve of.
Thatcher was an exception amongst Tory leaders and even she did not completely slash back the state and neither was she averse to nationalist populism either
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
The xenophobia is to be found in Leaverstan, not the centre of Remania. Try a pub on the Lincs coast.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
As you imply, the Lincolnshire coast is probably more liberal and tolerant of foreigners than most European cities.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
The xenophobia is to be found in Leaverstan, not the centre of Remania. Try a pub on the Lincs coast.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
Swanky hotels are not the way to sound out anyone but flunkeys.
Wouldn't be too complicated. All firms in the UK are required by law to keep a copy of "proof of right to work in the UK" for all employees. If that proof is an EU passport and if the EU citizens lost their right to work in the UK then all companies could be instructed to take action accordingly..
The burden should be on the government. If the individual has a valid National Insurance number - which the employer should be able to check with a simple web-based application - that should be incontrovertible proof that the employee is legally employable in the UK.
I really don't see the difficulty, or any need for employers to be harassed, have to go though hoops to check eligibility which they are ill-equipped to do, and treated as criminals if they make an honest mistake.
Think something similar could be said re duty on landlords. Why should they be able to determine if, under some international treaty unbeknown to them, a person with a passport from Country X has an automatic right to live and work in the UK, or not? And why should they be expected to tell real paperwork from fake paperwork?
Having said that, bearing in mind that outside of designated shortage areas companies in theory have to undertake a genuine* attempt to recruit an eligible worker by advertising within the UK (resident labour market test) before they can sponsor someone from outside the EEA/Switzerland to come and do it, I can't see what is awfully racist about getting firms to release how well they are doing at resident labour recruitment / how acute their skills shortage is (depending on how you look at it). If you're going to scream "racism" or "xenophobia" or whatnot, the obvious place is the rule that UK (and at present EEA) workers get first dibs. If you think any human anywhere in the world should have the same rights, and that one of these rights is the right to apply for and get that job, then this is a violation of their rights. Moreover it clearly discriminates against those who are not British/European. Actually publishing the figures might be distasteful to some, but is surely nowhere near as egregious as the logic of the rules that underlie it all.
* There are many whispers of companies and organisations whose searches within the UK/EEA were actually rather cursory, hence the "in theory". But on the national scale, I suspect this is a fairly small percentage of cases.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Personally, this regime still remains far preferable to the Cameron/Osborne regime -- although, on immigration, I would prefer that they concentrated on just cutting the numbers of immigrants who come to Britain in the first place, rather than these silly proposals to harass migrants who are already settled here and building lives here ("naming and shaming" companies or landlords who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years. But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour. Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Actually I think this could be the day the Tories lost the next election.
If this is the day the Tories lost the election, it is the day they lost it to UKIP.
Nearly all western nations are swinging quite hard to the right. The UK is no exception.
The populist, nationalist right though, not the economic, laissez-faire right
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the faro want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
I think it is a ridiculous, harmful target.
So Britain must accept mass unwanted annual immigration, of 300,000, 400,000 - 800,000 - three million - what - what do you think is a limit??? - and all because you, Southam, think targets are "ridiculous and harmful".
Get a grip. What hasor you are a kind of lefty Fascist who wants to impose it on them by force, and if they vote against it, you will ignore them, and cancel democracy.
This is a species of insanity.
Liberals have a choice. Do they accept that the voters are entitled to reduce levels of immigration? Or do they abandon democracy to maintain mass immigration?
Or do we seek to persuade people that vilifying foreigners and the entities that employ them is not only wrong, but harmful to British interests? As a democrat, that's my preferred option.
People have pretty clearly decided that they want fewer people entering the UK. that's quite plain.
It is. It will be tough to change minds. But I don't believe vilifying foreigners and the people who employ them is a good idea. I have every right to hold that view and to express it.
This is where you run up against the left's refusal to accept that it is OK to vilify foreigners and the people who employ them, I'm afraid.
Could you point to the passages in Amber Rudd's speech which 'vilify foreigners and the people who employ them'? I wouldn't want you to be in a position of being accused of smearing her.
On the question of immigration given the will it is easy to control. A simple tick list would suffice. Doctor yes or no, Nurse yes or no, Student intending to go home at the end of you education yes or no. Skilled worker (sorry we have failed to train any in this country we rely on cheap foreign labour) yea or no.
Tourist yes or no....
Simples
But that's still effectively a points based system that doesn't allow you to control the overall numbers, just the types of people coming in. If the goal is to reduce to 100,000 then that can't be assured.
So you have to add a quota, and after that we turn away all those doctors, nurses and students.
I agree it has to have numbers. totals. My point was it is possible and simple.
Think something similar could be said re duty on landlords. Why should they be able to determine if, under some international treaty unbeknown to them, a person with a passport from Country X has an automatic right to live and work in the UK, or not? And why should they be expected to tell real paperwork from fake paperwork?
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
The xenophobia is to be found in Leaverstan, not the centre of Remania. Try a pub on the Lincs coast.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
"I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here,
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here" how do you know that.
This is where you run up against the left's refusal to accept that it is OK to vilify foreigners and the people who employ them, I'm afraid.
Could you point to the passages in Amber Rudd's speech which 'vilify foreigners and the people who employ them'? I wouldn't want you to be in a position of being accused of smearing her.
When you wrote about seamlessly segueing from being an Osbornite stooge, were you looking in a mirror?
This is where you run up against the left's refusal to accept that it is OK to vilify foreigners and the people who employ them, I'm afraid.
Could you point to the passages in Amber Rudd's speech which 'vilify foreigners and the people who employ them'? I wouldn't want you to be in a position of being accused of smearing her.
This is silly, its about controlling immigration. Not vilifying foreigners. Its a wet leftys dream that they can turn this into a "hate the foreigner" campaign.
This is where you run up against the left's refusal to accept that it is OK to vilify foreigners and the people who employ them, I'm afraid.
Could you point to the passages in Amber Rudd's speech which 'vilify foreigners and the people who employ them'? I wouldn't want you to be in a position of being accused of smearing her.
I understand this is uncomfortable for you Richard. If Rudd disowns today's newpaper headlines and clarifies her views then I'll be happy to accept she got her messaging wrong.
Comments
Stepping back a bit: I posted a couple of weeks ago that I thought the most likely trajectory for UKIP over the rest of this parliament wasn't that it would thrive because of problems in the government's Brexit process, but that it would fragment under the weight of its own contradictions, now that the one uniting factor is history.
I was scratching my head trying to think of something that might bring about a peculiarly British recession,
So what leadership do you propose.....telling the electorate "it was all wrong we didn't mean it". And for good measure you are all racist.
What could possibly cause that?
(Gets mobbed by horde of black swans!)
But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour.
Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good.
Goodnight.
If we take the whole thing together, there’ll be nobody taken hostage, nobody used as a bargaining chip. I suspect it’ll be the first thing on the agenda when we actually start the discussion.”
What's the problem here?
It would obviously be a blue single triangle for foreign (forced) labour.
If your employee was a Jewish foreign forced labourer then they'd wear a yellow triangle with a blue triangle over the top. Is that what you mean?
Also the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/04/diane-james-quits-as-ukip-leader-after-just-18-days-as-successor/
"Just days into her leadership Ms James was verbally attacked and spat at in Waterloo station.
That incident is said to have had a major impact on her decision. A source said that she had been left "traumatised" by the experience, adding: "Diane doesn’t really want to talk about it because I think she is concerned that it will encourage others to try it again."
Wouldn't be too complicated. All firms in the UK are required by law to keep a copy of "proof of right to work in the UK" for all employees. If that proof is an EU passport and if the EU citizens lost their right to work in the UK then all companies could be instructed to take action accordingly.
I think this would be an utterly terrible idea and am not proposing it ... but its not impossible.
The process the Newsweek piece suggests "the membership need to come to a place where they've accepted that it's not working for themselves". They don't believe the polls, don't know how to interpret mid-term ones and their information channels cherry-pick the ones they see, so it's hard to see how they get there without an actual general election defeat.
The arrangement was discontinued.
Hence the cleft stick that wibbly wobbly Leavers find themselves in. They want an EEA solution. But that's incompatible with the Leave vote we got. So they flail around seeking a route to their preferred outcome.
It isn't there. We're stuck with inward-looking Brexit. That was obvious from the start to anyone with eyes to see. The useful idiots were idiots. I would say that it serves them right, but the entire country has been impoverished.
I really don't see the difficulty, or any need for employers to be harassed, have to go though hoops to check eligibility which they are ill-equipped to do, and treated as criminals if they make an honest mistake.
Each to their own.
There is no way to get immigration down to target without fiecely right wing policies.
Stop most immigration (including family reunion and students), deport as many asylum seekers as possible, and make recent immigrants unwelcome so that they return from whence they came.
How else is it to be done?
Let's face it, if a voter prioritised competence and stable management over all else, they would never have been voting UKIP in the first place.
Find a baying mob with torches and pitchforks and get in front of it.
The stock market has roared ahead, while the pound has plummeted.
And the Tories have stolen so many of UKIP's clothes that UKIP proper is giving up.
Steel toe capped Brexit.
You have this fantasy of ultra soft Brexit. It's not going to happen. We're going to end up in a cul de sac of nativist discontent, blaming everyone but ourselves for our increasing irrelevance. This was all entirely predictable and predicted.
Doctor yes or no, Nurse yes or no, Student intending to go home at the end of you education yes or no. Skilled worker (sorry we have failed to train any in this country we rely on cheap foreign labour) yea or no.
Tourist yes or no....
Simples
It's right wing, but not in a way Margaret Thatcher would recognise or approve of.
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here"
how do you know that.
So you have to add a quota, and after that we turn away all those doctors, nurses and students.
Having said that, bearing in mind that outside of designated shortage areas companies in theory have to undertake a genuine* attempt to recruit an eligible worker by advertising within the UK (resident labour market test) before they can sponsor someone from outside the EEA/Switzerland to come and do it, I can't see what is awfully racist about getting firms to release how well they are doing at resident labour recruitment / how acute their skills shortage is (depending on how you look at it). If you're going to scream "racism" or "xenophobia" or whatnot, the obvious place is the rule that UK (and at present EEA) workers get first dibs. If you think any human anywhere in the world should have the same rights, and that one of these rights is the right to apply for and get that job, then this is a violation of their rights. Moreover it clearly discriminates against those who are not British/European. Actually publishing the figures might be distasteful to some, but is surely nowhere near as egregious as the logic of the rules that underlie it all.
* There are many whispers of companies and organisations whose searches within the UK/EEA were actually rather cursory, hence the "in theory". But on the national scale, I suspect this is a fairly small percentage of cases.
My point was it is possible and simple.