There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.
Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.
I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.
I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.
If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.
Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
Ms Clennell was denied a right to enter the country six times between 1997 and 2007 according to the article. That was Brexit-related was it?
When she failed in a seventh go, whilst physically in the UK, the consequence had to be deportation.
On topic - those Farron numbers are awful. Right person as party leader: Jeremy Corbyn 24%, Tim Farron 25%. He is only saved because so many people don't know who he is still. Which is damning in its own right.
I expect a whole series of threads with observations like "The above numbers clearly show that Tim Farron is part of the problem....The solution is obvious. The LibDems need new leadership. Whether it will get it (and when) is anybody’s guess."
That depends on quite what you think Farron's jobs as Lib Dem leader is. He is not going to be PM, and if he has any sense he knows that. Instead he has to rebuild the party. I tipped him as next Lib Dem party leader back in 2012 or so for exactly that reason.
The local election results and the Richmond Park by-election indicate he's on a good path. His important audience is inside his party and would-be and past supporters.
Corbyn, on the other hand, is in a position (however unlikely) to be PM. His audience should be as much of the electorate as possible. I say should be, as he's rather spectacularly failing at that.
Nice attempt at a swerve, but the numbers are for being party leader, not Prime Minister. No-one was going to answer thinking Farron for PM. It means - best case - the voters have no confidence for him to be deputy PM in a coalition.
No swerve.
"No-one was going to answer thinking Farron for PM."
I think you over-estimate the effectiveness of this sort of polling. As an example: to be able to say whether someone's doing a good job, you'd need to have a fairly good idea of what the leader's doing, and perhaps even other alternatives within the party. Many people would for Corbyn, May and perhaps even Nuttall after recent events. Farron is much more anonymous.
If you haven't heard of the leader, or only vaguely heard of them, you're likely to reply they're not doing a good job.
And yes, that's a mild criticism. But only a mild one, as that's not what his main job is at the moment. Lib Dems wll very much know who he is. He is not 'saved' because so few people know who he is; the polling is because of it.
Basically: IMV this sort of polling becomes rather inaccurate when you get to the smaller parties who do not get the same airtime.
You re relying on polling over the results in real-life elections. But as someone pointed out below, Gorton's going to be another test for Farron.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.
Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.
I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.
I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.
If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.
Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.
And that the by-election will almost certainly be on May 4th, alongside the locals. Most people's attention will be elsewhere, so it will probably be a safe hold on a low turnout. Unless of course every Lib Dem in Manchester spends the next few weeks doing nothing except knocking doors.
I wonder if "success" there will be used to cover up a poor performance in the locals.
A nation that pays far too much attention to buzzfeed, it would seem.
Individual immigration issues can be sad - but the rules are there for a reason. See last nighht's thread for far more even handed detail on this case.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.
Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.
I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.
I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.
If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.
Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.
Perfect seat for a returning prince over the water, mind.
Whether of the Balls or Miliband variety....
Now that would be interesting.
I've had a tenner at averaged odds of 75/1 on Balls for next leader.
If Labour fail to win Gorton, I would hope Corbyn would be finished. The downside might be wall to wall coverage of Tim Farron hiring a larger minibus.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
This is like the time Kimi Raikkonen was declared the winner of the 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix, but then had to hand it over to Giancarlo Fisichella the following week because the FIA had calculated correctly who was leading at the last complete lap before the race was red flagged.
Duckworth Lewis in F1?
I'd forgotten about that race. Yes, when they abandon a race, in this case due to a storm that caused a lot of accidents and made conditions undrivable, they take the result as being the running order two laps before the red flag was shown that stops the race. In this case the stewards messed up and went back three laps, thinking that the leader was on the lap before the one he had actually just started as the race was stopped. Fisichella and Eddie Jordan appealed the result and the FIA court changed the result a week later. If that makes sense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Brazilian_Grand_Prix
A nation that pays far too much attention to buzzfeed, it would seem.
Individual immigration issues can be sad - but the rules are there for a reason. See last nighht's thread for far more even handed detail on this case.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
What would you have done, if your aged parents needed you?
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
IM to sure if you are joking but if you are being serious then I'd like to say it is exactly this kind of sentiment that is pushing more people over to "the right".
Leave was a vote for individuals own choices, the majority are decent people who were sick of of being lied to for the past 40 years, wanted sovereignty, wanted to be in control of their own future. Very few actively dislike foreigners.
As stated else where on this thread individual immigration decisions can sometimes look odd. We've got a contrasting one in DM today for a guy who's lived in America for 30+ years being deported to U.K. because he committed a crime. Rules are rules but and knee jerk reactions changing the law to tough cases usually make bad laws.
There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.
Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.
I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.
I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.
If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.
Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.
Perfect seat for a returning prince over the water, mind.
Whether of the Balls or Miliband variety....
Labour selections are under control of local committees, and have made local selections in all the byelections since Jezza took office. No way is Jezza parachuting anyone in. It will be a local selection by local people.
A nation that pays far too much attention to buzzfeed, it would seem.
Individual immigration issues can be sad - but the rules are there for a reason. See last nighht's thread for far more even handed detail on this case.
I dont think the full facts have been established on this case. Googling her and finding random stories on the internet is not the same as reading the home office files. The basic point is that even though she has a family here, 2 generations, and is caring for her ill british husband she is still being deported and that is what most people find outrageous. But the rules are the rules.
When even the Daily Mail has a supportive article you know the PB Tories are out on their own.
A nation that pays far too much attention to buzzfeed, it would seem.
Individual immigration issues can be sad - but the rules are there for a reason. See last nighht's thread for far more even handed detail on this case.
I dont think the full facts have been established on this case. Googling her and finding random stories on the internet is not the same as reading the home office files. The basic point is that even though she has a family here, 2 generations, and is caring for her ill british husband she is still being deported and that is what most people find outrageous. But the rules are the rules.
Most people won't find it outrageous.
Singapore have far stricter immigration rules than us, Mrs Clennell only has herself to blame I'm afraid.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.
Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.
I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.
I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.
If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.
Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.
Perfect seat for a returning prince over the water, mind.
Whether of the Balls or Miliband variety....
Labour selections are under control of local committees, and have made local selections in all the byelections since Jezza took office. No way is Jezza parachuting anyone in. It will be a local selection by local people.
I'm pretty sure Jezza wouldn't want to parachute either of those in....
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
There's no reason to believe that similar cases didn't occur at any stage after we introduced immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals.
A nation that pays far too much attention to buzzfeed, it would seem.
Individual immigration issues can be sad - but the rules are there for a reason. See last nighht's thread for far more even handed detail on this case.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
What would you have done, if your aged parents needed you?
Applied for British citizenship - which can't be revoked. But then I'd have to have given up my Singaporean citizenship - life is about choices - the lady made hers and is objecting to the consequences of them.
A nation that pays far too much attention to buzzfeed, it would seem.
Individual immigration issues can be sad - but the rules are there for a reason. See last nighht's thread for far more even handed detail on this case.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
What would you have done, if your aged parents needed you?
Gone home, of course. But I wouldn't stay in a country illegally for three years.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
IM to sure if you are joking but if you are being serious then I'd like to say it is exactly this kind of sentiment that is pushing more people over to "the right".
Leave was a vote for individuals own choices, the majority are decent people who were sick of of being lied to for the past 40 years, wanted sovereignty, wanted to be in control of their own future. Very few actively dislike foreigners.
As stated else where on this thread individual immigration decisions can sometimes look odd. We've got a contrasting one in DM today for a guy who's lived in America for 30+ years being deported to U.K. because he committed a crime. Rules are rules but and knee jerk reactions changing the law to tough cases usually make bad laws.
Sir Gerald Kaufman, Labour MP for Manchester Gorton and Father of the House of Commons, has died aged 86. His family made the announcement late on Sunday, calling him "a great socialist and parliamentarian".
Sir Gerald, who was the oldest serving MP, famously called his party's left-wing 1983 election manifesto "the longest suicide note in history".
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn led tributes to him, calling him an "iconic and irascible figure".
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
The original refusal of Indefinite Leave to Remain was in 1999........the lady has had three governments and 18 years to make her case.....what has any of this to do with Brexit?
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
IM to sure if you are joking but if you are being serious then I'd like to say it is exactly this kind of sentiment that is pushing more people over to "the right".
Leave was a vote for individuals own choices, the majority are decent people who were sick of of being lied to for the past 40 years, wanted sovereignty, wanted to be in control of their own future. Very few actively dislike foreigners.
As stated else where on this thread individual immigration decisions can sometimes look odd. We've got a contrasting one in DM today for a guy who's lived in America for 30+ years being deported to U.K. because he committed a crime. Rules are rules but and knee jerk reactions changing the law to tough cases usually make bad laws.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.
If Labour fail to win Gorton, I would hope Corbyn would be finished. The downside might be wall to wall coverage of Tim Farron hiring a larger minibus.
Corbyn would definitely go. Labour will win, I bet any money.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.
There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
Perhaps because Remainers are tying to use it as some sort of example of how Britain has changed since the referendum?
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.
There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.
There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.
She was deported unlawfully?
That remains to be seen. But either way, the rule of law did not require her deportation.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.
There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.
She was deported unlawfully?
That remains to be seen. But either way, the rule of law did not require her deportation.
Her deportation must have been required by law, otherwise it wouldn't have been done.
There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.
Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.
I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.
I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.
If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.
Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.
Perfect seat for a returning prince over the water, mind.
Whether of the Balls or Miliband variety....
Labour selections are under control of local committees, and have made local selections in all the byelections since Jezza took office. No way is Jezza parachuting anyone in. It will be a local selection by local people.
I doubt Jezza would be overly keen on a Miliband or Balls return.
That said, I doubt Miliband would win a Labour leadership election, almost irrespective of the opposition. Too much history with Blair and too little contact these last five years.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
The original refusal of Indefinite Leave to Remain was in 1999........the lady has had three governments and 18 years to make her case.....what has any of this to do with Brexit?
Maybe it was because we didn't join the Eurozone, back then.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.
There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.
She was deported unlawfully?
That remains to be seen. But either way, the rule of law did not require her deportation.
Her deportation must have been required by law, otherwise it wouldn't have been done.
The rule of law can allow for more than one course of action. And your faith in the executive always acting in accordance with the law is somewhere between touching and terrifying.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
The original refusal of Indefinite Leave to Remain was in 1999........the lady has had three governments and 18 years to make her case.....what has any of this to do with Brexit?
Maybe it was because we didn't join the Eurozone, back then.
Perhaps her deportation took place in 1999 courtesy of a trip in the Tardis.
So the Oscars selection committee's attempt to pat themselves on the back by choosing critic's pick Moonlight over the perhaps more frivolous La La Land has instead led to the biggest gaffe in the history of the Oscars which is dominating all the coverage. I expect the Orange One is preparing a tweet laced with schadenfreude as we speak
"No-one was going to answer thinking Farron for PM."
I think you over-estimate the effectiveness of this sort of polling. As an example: to be able to say whether someone's doing a good job, you'd need to have a fairly good idea of what the leader's doing, and perhaps even other alternatives within the party. Many people would for Corbyn, May and perhaps even Nuttall after recent events. Farron is much more anonymous.
If you haven't heard of the leader, or only vaguely heard of them, you're likely to reply they're not doing a good job.
And yes, that's a mild criticism. But only a mild one, as that's not what his main job is at the moment. Lib Dems wll very much know who he is. He is not 'saved' because so few people know who he is; the polling is because of it.
Basically: IMV this sort of polling becomes rather inaccurate when you get to the smaller parties who do not get the same airtime.
You re relying on polling over the results in real-life elections. But as someone pointed out below, Gorton's going to be another test for Farron.
To be fair, I don't think Gorton is any test of anybody. It will be a huge Labour win. Making much of who comes second really will be for just us obsessives.
But Farron has had 18 months in the job to get himself out there and to become known by the public. Failing to do that is more than a mild criticism.
After all, he has been party leader longer than Corbyn.....
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
Ms Clennell was denied a right to enter the country six times between 1997 and 2007 according to the article. That was Brexit-related was it?
When she failed in a seventh go, whilst physically in the UK, the consequence had to be deportation.
The threshold for deportation in this country is very high.
The rule of law can allow for more than one course of action. And your faith in the executive always acting in accordance with the law is somewhere between touching and terrifying.
Well the law could be changed, I suppose. The whole point of the rule of law is that there are well-defined laws rather than arbitrary decisions. Choosing to allow her to stay, but deporting someone else whose ILR has lapsed sounds pretty arbitrary to me.
Any idea how this will play out? Assuming refusing it will only fan the flames. Grant them the referendum and see what happens.
She certainly won't grant any referendum until Brexit has been completed and the SNP win an overall majority at the next Holyrood elections with it in their manifesto (or at the bare minimum maintain the present majority with the Scottish Greens)
To be fair, I don't think Gorton is any test of anybody. It will be a huge Labour win. Making much of who comes second really will be for just us obsessives.
But Farron has had 18 months in the job to get himself out there and to become known by the public. Failing to do that is more than a mild criticism.
After all, he has been party leader longer than Corbyn.....
Yet, despite not being known by the public, the Lib Dems are winning local elections, and won a parliamentary seat off the Conservatives. That's a massive improvement from where they were two years ago. It's hardly a failure.
I don't particularly like Farron as a person, and his politics don't really match mine. I'm not exactly a fan. But I can see that he's doing exactly what the Lib Dems need. And as I've said passim, after a while he'll hand over to someone more saleable generally.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.
Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.
Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.
Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.
There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.
If it was unlawful, perhaps some lawyer will take up the unfortunate woman's case on a pro bono basis? I mean, if the case came to the attention of an English solicitor with a sister firm in Singapore and a burning desire to make a real difference, how lucky would that be? It would be too much of a coincidence, though.
On-topic - hard to disagree with the reasoning, and the polling isn't a surprise. Interesting to see poor figures for Nuttall and Farron, although they have a lot more don't-knows as well. Corbyn's widely known by the public, and they've decided they don't like him.
The rule of law can allow for more than one course of action. And your faith in the executive always acting in accordance with the law is somewhere between touching and terrifying.
Well the law could be changed, I suppose. The whole point of the rule of law is that there are well-defined laws rather than arbitrary decisions. Choosing to allow her to stay, but deporting someone else whose ILR has lapsed sounds pretty arbitrary to me.
What annoys people is when those who follow the process and try and do things the right way seem to be positively discriminated against by the government.
It should be really simple that anyone found living in the county illegally, overstaying a visit visa or found guilty of a crime should be deported at the earliest opportunity. If they wish to return then they can apply from abroad at their own expense. If they've destroyed their documents then they should be held in custody until their identity can be determined. This is how every other country works!
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
Not particularly commenting on the rights and wrongs of this case but one of the many weird things about immigration rules is that when the voters complain there are too many immigrants and they tighten them up, it becomes harder to leave. I'd be in a similar position; I have permanent residence in Japan, but if I had to go back to Britain to look after relatives or whatever I'd lose it, and I'd have to start again with the visa process from scratch. (In Japan's case unlike Britain they don't have all kinds of horrible restrictions on spouse visas so it probably wouldn't be too hard, but you never know.)
The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...
On the macro scale the fact that restrictions make it harder to leave sometimes seems to make immigration clampdowns counter-productive. For instance, the US beefed up border security in 1993 and 1994, with the result that:
Although the intent of border enforcement was to discourage migrants from coming to the United States, in practice it backfired, instead discouraging them from returning home to Mexico. Having experienced the risks and having paid the costs of gaining entry, undocumented men increasingly hunkered down and stayed in the United States, rather than circulating back to face the gantlet once more. As a result, the rate of return migration began to fall after 1986 and accelerated with the launching of the border operations in 1993 and 1994.
Because net migration equals the difference between those entering and leaving the United States, the falling rate of return produced a huge increase in the net volume of undocumented migration.
If Labour fail to win Gorton, I would hope Corbyn would be finished. The downside might be wall to wall coverage of Tim Farron hiring a larger minibus.
Corbyn would definitely go. Labour will win, I bet any money.
Given Corbyn can squeeze the Green vote who came second in 2015 and it is full of students Manchester Gorton could even produce a rare pro Labour swing, it is an ideal by election for Corbyn after the Copeland disaster
F1: incidentally, don't tend to mention the lists I use on Twitter (handy for categorising stuff), but if you want to follow testing there'll probably be a huge amount of tweets and photographs of the new cars: https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/lists/f1-stuff
It's also the first stop for me if I want to check for breaking news on F1 (which has proved profitable once or twice in the past).
Over breakfast I was wondering what happens within a party immediately after this news. What 'process' is followed?
Given the party leaders probably don't know much about the situation on the ground in each constituency, do they phone the local chairman and try to get a feel for how things are on the ground? After all, strategic decisions need to be made: how much money to spend on the by-election; the risks and rewards of soft-pedalling versus going all out for a win.
@edmundintokyo - interesting, thanks. Although I suppose you are becoming a citizen of that county to ensure you can get back in. That's less counterintuitive.
I feel a bit sorry personally for this Singaporean lady - but only to a degree. My wife arrived in 1998 (Dec) with me on a 6 month marriage visa. We married in March 1999. We stayed in the UK to fulfill residence requirements. She applied for citizenship as soon as legally possible and naturalised (thus losing her Chinese citizenship) in 2003. We've been married for 18 years. together for 20. 2 kids. We live in Surrey. This lady in 20 years seems to have failed to even apply for citizenship! Sure her circumstances suck now but she kind of brought it on herself.
F1: incidentally, don't tend to mention the lists I use on Twitter (handy for categorising stuff), but if you want to follow testing there'll probably be a huge amount of tweets and photographs of the new cars: https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/lists/f1-stuff
It's also the first stop for me if I want to check for breaking news on F1 (which has proved profitable once or twice in the past).
Thanks for that.
I must admit I'm finding my love of F1 is waning considerably: I'm unsure if it's the fact I cannot watch all races live on TV, the fact I'm now a father with other time pressures, or the spectacle itself.
I think this is the first year I've not been obsessively following all the car launches, and last year was the first one I've never bought an Autosport.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...
The problem there would be the Japanese would require you to renounce your British citizenship......the British, on the other hand, don't mind if you have citizenship of more than one country - all they do is point out that they can't help you if you get in trouble in that country.
Not for the first time, the British are simultaneously more liberal and the bad guys.....
Any idea how this will play out? Assuming refusing it will only fan the flames. Grant them the referendum and see what happens.
I would assume that May would not only influence the timing (post 2020) but also insist that the question specifically mentions being in the EU and leaving the UK single market.
After all, that is the justification for trying to re-run a 'once in a generation' referendum.
Mr. Jessop, my own interest is less than it was. I think it's a combination of the television coverage (and when it is on Channel 4 I can't watch anything pre- or post-race because Steve Jones grates), and the on-track issues (dominant Mercedes, new circuits being rubbish).
We'll have to see how the technical changes affect overtaking, and how close, or not, it is at the sharp end. At least if Mercedes are dominant, my Bottas tip will come off.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
Not particularly commenting on the rights and wrongs of this case but one of the many weird things about immigration rules is that when the voters complain there are too many immigrants and they tighten them up, it becomes harder to leave. I'd be in a similar position; I have permanent residence in Japan, but if I had to go back to Britain to look after relatives or whatever I'd lose it, and I'd have to start again with the visa process from scratch. (In Japan's case unlike Britain they don't have all kinds of horrible restrictions on spouse visas so it probably wouldn't be too hard, but you never know.)
The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...
On the macro scale the fact that restrictions make it harder to leave sometimes seems to make immigration clampdowns counter-productive. For instance, the US beefed up border security in 1993 and 1994, with the result that:
Although the intent of border enforcement was to discourage migrants from coming to the United States, in practice it backfired, instead discouraging them from returning home to Mexico. Having experienced the risks and having paid the costs of gaining entry, undocumented men increasingly hunkered down and stayed in the United States, rather than circulating back to face the gantlet once more. As a result, the rate of return migration began to fall after 1986 and accelerated with the launching of the border operations in 1993 and 1994.
Because net migration equals the difference between those entering and leaving the United States, the falling rate of return produced a huge increase in the net volume of undocumented migration.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...
The problem there would be the Japanese would require you to renounce your British citizenship......the British, on the other hand, don't mind if you have citizenship of more than one country - all they do is point out that they can't help you if you get in trouble in that country.
Not for the first time, the British are simultaneously more liberal and the bad guys.....
Right - that's why I haven't naturalized Japanese already. Back when I used to live in a town with a lot of South American immigrants a lot of them seemed to just keep their Peruvian or Brazilian passports and not tell the Japanese authorities, but that seems high-risk and I'm not sure if they're still getting away with it.
PS. The dual nationality part is more liberal in Britain but the issuing of spouse visas certainly isn't. Pre-Brexit some people used to claim that once they didn't have to take all these Europeans the British would be able to be less evil on non-EU spouse visas; I didn't believe it at the time but I'd be interested to hear if there's any sign of movement in that direction.
This lady in 20 years seems to have failed to even apply for citizenship!
That would have required her to renounce her Singaporean citizenship - at Singapore's insistence (not Britain's) - which clearly she didn't want to do. Life is about choices - she doesn't like the consequences of the one she made.
Any idea how this will play out? Assuming refusing it will only fan the flames. Grant them the referendum and see what happens.
I would assume that May would not only influence the timing (post 2020) but also insist that the question specifically mentions being in the EU and leaving the UK single market.
After all, that is the justification for trying to re-run a 'once in a generation' referendum.
Yes ideally something like 'Do you wish Scotland to leave the United Kingdom to rejoin the European Union'
If Labour fail to win Gorton, I would hope Corbyn would be finished. The downside might be wall to wall coverage of Tim Farron hiring a larger minibus.
Corbyn would definitely go. Labour will win, I bet any money.
Given Corbyn can squeeze the Green vote who came second in 2015 and it is full of students Manchester Gorton could even produce a rare pro Labour swing, it is an ideal by election for Corbyn after the Copeland disaster
They'll be more than cancelled out by Lab-Lib defections, surely. The Greens will portobello lose second place though.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
There's no reason to believe that similar cases didn't occur at any stage after we introduced immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals.
For example this case:
' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last-ditch bid to let her stay in the country was denied.
A judge at London's Law Courts refused to grant an emergency injunction to block the removal of Mauritian teenager Yashika Bageerathi from Britain.
The 19-year-old has now been sent back alone to her home country, separated from her mother and her siblings, after immigration authorities refused her claim for asylum.
The decision slaps down a high-profile campaign which had sought to reverse the decision to deport Ms Bageerathi, a promising student, before she was able to take her A-level exams. '
Mr. Jessop, my own interest is less than it was. I think it's a combination of the television coverage (and when it is on Channel 4 I can't watch anything pre- or post-race because Steve Jones grates), and the on-track issues (dominant Mercedes, new circuits being rubbish).
We'll have to see how the technical changes affect overtaking, and how close, or not, it is at the sharp end. At least if Mercedes are dominant, my Bottas tip will come off.
Quite amazed that, given the new promoter, it appears there's no TV cameras at the first test. Sky F1 Channel not covering it live either.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...
The problem there would be the Japanese would require you to renounce your British citizenship......the British, on the other hand, don't mind if you have citizenship of more than one country - all they do is point out that they can't help you if you get in trouble in that country.
Not for the first time, the British are simultaneously more liberal and the bad guys.....
Right - that's why I haven't naturalized Japanese already. Back when I used to live in a town with a lot of South American immigrants a lot of them seemed to just keep their Peruvian or Brazilian passports and not tell the Japanese authorities, but that seems high-risk and I'm not sure if they're still getting away with it.
When the US didn't allow dual citizenship a British friend of mine asked the British Embassy if he'd have to give up his British passport on becoming a US Citizen. "Why? Are you going to tell them? We certainly aren't!"
Most teams are going for one driver per day. I think Mercedes is having both drivers in every day, which may be indicative of confidence in the car rather than some sort of maximum equality measure.
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...
The problem there would be the Japanese would require you to renounce your British citizenship......the British, on the other hand, don't mind if you have citizenship of more than one country - all they do is point out that they can't help you if you get in trouble in that country.
Not for the first time, the British are simultaneously more liberal and the bad guys.....
Right - that's why I haven't naturalized Japanese already. Back when I used to live in a town with a lot of South American immigrants a lot of them seemed to just keep their Peruvian or Brazilian passports and not tell the Japanese authorities, but that seems high-risk and I'm not sure if they're still getting away with it.
When the US didn't allow dual citizenship a British friend of mine asked the British Embassy if he'd have to give up his British passport on becoming a US Citizen. "Why? Are you going to tell them? We certainly aren't!"
Hah! I suppose you just have to be careful about which you use to enter certain countries. For example, they may get suspicious if you leave and come back with no extra entry/exit stamps in your passport.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
There's no reason to believe that similar cases didn't occur at any stage after we introduced immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals.
For example this case:
' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last-ditch bid to let her stay in the country was denied.
A judge at London's Law Courts refused to grant an emergency injunction to block the removal of Mauritian teenager Yashika Bageerathi from Britain.
The 19-year-old has now been sent back alone to her home country, separated from her mother and her siblings, after immigration authorities refused her claim for asylum.
The decision slaps down a high-profile campaign which had sought to reverse the decision to deport Ms Bageerathi, a promising student, before she was able to take her A-level exams. '
Anyone want to check back to see who was or wasn't getting upset by that deportation.
Why would someone from Mauritius apply for asylum in the UK - were the Mauritian government persecuting her for being their political opponent or was her life in danger if she returned there?
It seems to me that if common sense had prevailed and discretion that both the Home Office and government exercise day to day had been actioned, then this deportation would have been avoided as it should have been.
When Conservatives talk about the importance of the "family" and relatives taking a more important role in social care we might feel ourselves entitled to a wry smile.
Perhaps this lady has made errors but are we a nation that rigidly sticks to rules, is unbending and has a lack of compassion. I'd like to think not.
Life is about choices - she doesn't like the consequences of the one she made.
Aside from whether the rules are being correctly applied in this case, it's not obvious why it's in anyone's interests to force people to choose between looking after their parents when they get sick and looking after their spouse when they get sick later on.
I think the reasonable cause for disagreement here (if the case is being correctly reported) is whether the problem is these specific rules, the way the rules were applied, or whether the entire enterprise is a fool's errand.
Most teams are going for one driver per day. I think Mercedes is having both drivers in every day, which may be indicative of confidence in the car rather than some sort of maximum equality measure.
Most teams go the the testing with only a single car, and alternate the drivers daily. It may be that Mercedes have two cars ready, or can quickly change the setup to give two drivers a chance each day. If the latter it could also be human-factors related - the new cars are more physically demanding to drive and they probably want to avoid them being too tired towards the end of a long day.
Japan's refugee policy is horrible, but no, obviously it isn't the reason why I live here. Who chooses what country to live in based on its refugee policy? I mean apart from refugees.
Mr. Sandpit, yes, I'd heard that on the driver stresses. May make a difference to those out of shape (maybe also Verstappen, being so young, though I guess he'd be ok).
Edited extra bit: red flag, from Ricciardo's Red Bull.
There'll be plenty in testing. Providing it's not a trend, I wouldn't worry.
If Labour fail to win Gorton, I would hope Corbyn would be finished. The downside might be wall to wall coverage of Tim Farron hiring a larger minibus.
Corbyn would definitely go. Labour will win, I bet any money.
Given Corbyn can squeeze the Green vote who came second in 2015 and it is full of students Manchester Gorton could even produce a rare pro Labour swing, it is an ideal by election for Corbyn after the Copeland disaster
They'll be more than cancelled out by Lab-Lib defections, surely. The Greens will portobello lose second place though.
Morning all,
And, right on cue, another by-election Corbyn doesn't need. Will be interesting to see how the Progressive Alliance is working in this one.
Any idea how this will play out? Assuming refusing it will only fan the flames. Grant them the referendum and see what happens.
She certainly won't grant any referendum until Brexit has been completed and the SNP win an overall majority at the next Holyrood elections with it in their manifesto (or at the bare minimum maintain the present majority with the Scottish Greens)
If Theresa May does not want to grant the SNP a second referendum, she should perhaps also refrain from ill-judged hostages to fortune like this: Prime Minister Theresa May has urged voters across Scotland to use the upcoming local elections to express their opposition to Scottish independence.
I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.
it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson
What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
There's no reason to believe that similar cases didn't occur at any stage after we introduced immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals.
For example this case:
' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last-ditch bid to let her stay in the country was denied.
A judge at London's Law Courts refused to grant an emergency injunction to block the removal of Mauritian teenager Yashika Bageerathi from Britain.
The 19-year-old has now been sent back alone to her home country, separated from her mother and her siblings, after immigration authorities refused her claim for asylum.
The decision slaps down a high-profile campaign which had sought to reverse the decision to deport Ms Bageerathi, a promising student, before she was able to take her A-level exams. '
Anyone want to check back to see who was or wasn't getting upset by that deportation.
Why would someone from Mauritius apply for asylum in the UK - were the Mauritian government persecuting her for being their political opponent or was her life in danger if she returned there?
IIRC it was said to be an abusive family situation.
Life is about choices - she doesn't like the consequences of the one she made.
Aside from whether the rules are being correctly applied in this case, it's not obvious why it's in anyone's interests to force people to choose between looking after their parents when they get sick and looking after their spouse when they get sick later on.
I think the reasonable cause for disagreement here (if the case is being correctly reported) is whether the problem is these specific rules, the way the rules were applied, or whether the entire enterprise is a fool's errand.
Some countries don't allow dual nationality. If people from those countries choose to marry elsewhere they are then forced into a choice of where they ultimately wish to end up. Not a choice they want - but a choice they face. They need to discuss this choice with family and friends in advance and make a mature considered decision. I suspect Singapore takes this route because they are too small to be a viable 'fall back optoin' if their citizens leave but then wish to return later in life. In the freedom or living standards dilemma they chose living standards.
Comments
When she failed in a seventh go, whilst physically in the UK, the consequence had to be deportation.
"No-one was going to answer thinking Farron for PM."
I think you over-estimate the effectiveness of this sort of polling. As an example: to be able to say whether someone's doing a good job, you'd need to have a fairly good idea of what the leader's doing, and perhaps even other alternatives within the party. Many people would for Corbyn, May and perhaps even Nuttall after recent events. Farron is much more anonymous.
If you haven't heard of the leader, or only vaguely heard of them, you're likely to reply they're not doing a good job.
And yes, that's a mild criticism. But only a mild one, as that's not what his main job is at the moment. Lib Dems wll very much know who he is. He is not 'saved' because so few people know who he is; the polling is because of it.
Basically: IMV this sort of polling becomes rather inaccurate when you get to the smaller parties who do not get the same airtime.
You re relying on polling over the results in real-life elections. But as someone pointed out below, Gorton's going to be another test for Farron.
The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.
Arrived UK 1988
Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain'
1993 - left UK
1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained'
1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.
Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Brazilian_Grand_Prix
Leave was a vote for individuals own choices, the majority are decent people who were sick of of being lied to for the past 40 years, wanted sovereignty, wanted to be in control of their own future. Very few actively dislike foreigners.
As stated else where on this thread individual immigration decisions can sometimes look odd. We've got a contrasting one in DM today for a guy who's lived in America for 30+ years being deported to U.K. because he committed a crime. Rules are rules but and knee jerk reactions changing the law to tough cases usually make bad laws.
Oscars - four bets, zero winners. Ho hum.
F1: testing starts in one minute, huzzah!
Singapore have far stricter immigration rules than us, Mrs Clennell only has herself to blame I'm afraid.
https://twitter.com/anyabike/status/836118324207562752
where's Kilroy?
Sir Gerald, who was the oldest serving MP, famously called his party's left-wing 1983 election manifesto "the longest suicide note in history".
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn led tributes to him, calling him an "iconic and irascible figure".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39099489
His book "How to be a Minister" was worth a read.
Just catching up on the Oscar Best Film imbroglio. Wonderful.
Have the loveys started blaming Trump, or Warren Beatty's Inner Racist, yet?
That said, I doubt Miliband would win a Labour leadership election, almost irrespective of the opposition. Too much history with Blair and too little contact these last five years.
But Farron has had 18 months in the job to get himself out there and to become known by the public. Failing to do that is more than a mild criticism.
After all, he has been party leader longer than Corbyn.....
Any idea how this will play out? Assuming refusing it will only fan the flames. Grant them the referendum and see what happens.
Main opposition is likely to come from Bez.
"free energy, free food and free anything"
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/corbyn-admits-that-there-are-serious-problems-with-britains-voters-20170224122779
I don't particularly like Farron as a person, and his politics don't really match mine. I'm not exactly a fan. But I can see that he's doing exactly what the Lib Dems need. And as I've said passim, after a while he'll hand over to someone more saleable generally.
It should be really simple that anyone found living in the county illegally, overstaying a visit visa or found guilty of a crime should be deported at the earliest opportunity. If they wish to return then they can apply from abroad at their own expense. If they've destroyed their documents then they should be held in custody until their identity can be determined. This is how every other country works!
The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...
On the macro scale the fact that restrictions make it harder to leave sometimes seems to make immigration clampdowns counter-productive. For instance, the US beefed up border security in 1993 and 1994, with the result that:
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/lists/f1-stuff
It's also the first stop for me if I want to check for breaking news on F1 (which has proved profitable once or twice in the past).
Given the party leaders probably don't know much about the situation on the ground in each constituency, do they phone the local chairman and try to get a feel for how things are on the ground? After all, strategic decisions need to be made: how much money to spend on the by-election; the risks and rewards of soft-pedalling versus going all out for a win.
My wife arrived in 1998 (Dec) with me on a 6 month marriage visa. We married in March 1999. We stayed in the UK to fulfill residence requirements. She applied for citizenship as soon as legally possible and naturalised (thus losing her Chinese citizenship) in 2003. We've been married for 18 years. together for 20. 2 kids. We live in Surrey.
This lady in 20 years seems to have failed to even apply for citizenship! Sure her circumstances suck now but she kind of brought it on herself.
I must admit I'm finding my love of F1 is waning considerably: I'm unsure if it's the fact I cannot watch all races live on TV, the fact I'm now a father with other time pressures, or the spectacle itself.
I think this is the first year I've not been obsessively following all the car launches, and last year was the first one I've never bought an Autosport.
Not for the first time, the British are simultaneously more liberal and the bad guys.....
Mr Antifrank ... might be making an accurate point about the law. I'll give it a read.
Mr Meeks ... probably an anti-Brexit rant. Ignore.
I fully expect the latter to revert to the former when we finally leave.
After all, that is the justification for trying to re-run a 'once in a generation' referendum.
We'll have to see how the technical changes affect overtaking, and how close, or not, it is at the sharp end. At least if Mercedes are dominant, my Bottas tip will come off.
https://www.ft.com/content/528f996e-f1b4-11e6-8758-6876151821a6
No wonder you choose to live there.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/836130474946924544
PS. The dual nationality part is more liberal in Britain but the issuing of spouse visas certainly isn't. Pre-Brexit some people used to claim that once they didn't have to take all these Europeans the British would be able to be less evil on non-EU spouse visas; I didn't believe it at the time but I'd be interested to hear if there's any sign of movement in that direction.
' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last-ditch bid to let her stay in the country was denied.
A judge at London's Law Courts refused to grant an emergency injunction to block the removal of Mauritian teenager Yashika Bageerathi from Britain.
The 19-year-old has now been sent back alone to her home country, separated from her mother and her siblings, after immigration authorities refused her claim for asylum.
The decision slaps down a high-profile campaign which had sought to reverse the decision to deport Ms Bageerathi, a promising student, before she was able to take her A-level exams. '
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595232/Mauritian-student-denied-asylum-despite-campaign-let-finish-A-levels-deported-tonight.html
Anyone want to check back to see who was or wasn't getting upset by that deportation.
Anything but a strong second in MG will be a poor result for Farron's lot.
Most teams are going for one driver per day. I think Mercedes is having both drivers in every day, which may be indicative of confidence in the car rather than some sort of maximum equality measure.
When Conservatives talk about the importance of the "family" and relatives taking a more important role in social care we might feel ourselves entitled to a wry smile.
Perhaps this lady has made errors but are we a nation that rigidly sticks to rules, is unbending and has a lack of compassion. I'd like to think not.
I think the reasonable cause for disagreement here (if the case is being correctly reported) is whether the problem is these specific rules, the way the rules were applied, or whether the entire enterprise is a fool's errand.
An unfortunate pose for Jezza. It makes him look like Albert Steptoe, or Phil Neville's granddad.
Edited extra bit: red flag, from Ricciardo's Red Bull.
There'll be plenty in testing. Providing it's not a trend, I wouldn't worry.
And, right on cue, another by-election Corbyn doesn't need. Will be interesting to see how the Progressive Alliance is working in this one.
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/exclusive-theresa-may-urges-scots-use-local-elections-reject-independence
Hat-tip Carlotta earlier in this thread.
But Theresa May’s career so far suggests it would be a bad mistake to underestimate her.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/theresa-may-way-uk-politics-prime-minister
I suspect Singapore takes this route because they are too small to be a viable 'fall back optoin' if their citizens leave but then wish to return later in life. In the freedom or living standards dilemma they chose living standards.
I'm making an early prediction: the Lib Dems should be looking for at least 25% in this constituency, particularly if it was heavily remain.
However much will depend on the state and strength of the local Lib Dem constituency party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Gorton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
Gorton should be an interesting by election. It has the good the bad and the ugly.....
Manchester University the (old) Hacienda and the Etihad.
A possibility for the Lib Dems I'd guess