For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/977966504141623296?lang=en ________________________________ Labour is an anti-racist party and I utterly condemn antisemitism, which is why as leader of the Labour Party I want to be clear that I will not tolerate any form of antisemitism that exists in and around our movement. _________________________________
These are just a few I found quickly, he has called out anti semitism. This doesn't magically stop people posting things on twitter.
We alll know that Corbyn claims to be “militant against anti-semetism”; those claims ring fairly hollow right now.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
I am well aware it was dropped - but look at which side of the debate May was on, and her reaction at losing.
I know it isn't important in the scheme of things, but just from a historical point of view it's regrettable that the landing cards were destroyed by the Home Office because they probably would have been useful for future archivists, historians, sociologists, etc investigating that era of British and Commonwealth history.
That was my immediate thought as well. Whichever official made this decision had a very poor sense of history. I fear that data protection nonsense was probably higher in the pecking order.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
I am well aware it was dropped - but look at which side of the debate May was on, and her reaction at losing.
Look at the remainder of the Act which was not dropped. Does a civilised society really want to have a significant number of people in its midst who cannot legally rent a house, open a bank account, work or drive a car? How do we think people in that situation will be treated, particularly if (as is all too likely to be the case) they were already in the hands of people traffickers who had got them into the country in the first place?
A moments thought would show that you are condemning those people to exploitation and brutality making it almost impossible to escape. It is shameful enough without going on about the bits that didn’t make it.
"Whilst approximately six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust, nearly one-third of all Americans (31%) and over four-in-ten Millennials (41% ) believe that two million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust."
doe anybody know of any equivalent polling from the UK?
It's not clear if that's just a poor grasp of history or something more sinister. A friend of mine at Cambridge about a decade ago told me that many of his (left-wing) friends believe the 6 million figure was an exaggeration.
We need an expert on such matters ... where's Rod?
"Whilst approximately six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust, nearly one-third of all Americans (31%) and over four-in-ten Millennials (41% ) believe that two million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust."
doe anybody know of any equivalent polling from the UK?
It's not clear if that's just a poor grasp of history or something more sinister. A friend of mine at Cambridge about a decade ago told me that many of his (left-wing) friends believe the 6 million figure was an exaggeration.
Simple incredulity? After all, it’s three times the population of Wales!
For the avoidance of doubt I accept the accuracy of the figure. Sadly.
"Whilst approximately six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust, nearly one-third of all Americans (31%) and over four-in-ten Millennials (41% ) believe that two million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust."
doe anybody know of any equivalent polling from the UK?
It's not clear if that's just a poor grasp of history or something more sinister. A friend of mine at Cambridge about a decade ago told me that many of his (left-wing) friends believe the 6 million figure was an exaggeration.
Simple incredulity? After all, it’s three times the population of Wales!
For the avoidance of doubt I accept the accuracy of the figure. Sadly.
There is probably room for some argument around the edges because not all of those murdered were Jews. There were also gays, the disabled, political opponents and other minorities such as Roma. But no one approaching the records with the merest touch of integrity could doubt that Jews were the principal target of the Final Solution or that the numbers were of the order of 6m.
"Whilst approximately six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust, nearly one-third of all Americans (31%) and over four-in-ten Millennials (41% ) believe that two million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust."
doe anybody know of any equivalent polling from the UK?
It's not clear if that's just a poor grasp of history or something more sinister. A friend of mine at Cambridge about a decade ago told me that many of his (left-wing) friends believe the 6 million figure was an exaggeration.
Simple incredulity? After all, it’s three times the population of Wales!
For the avoidance of doubt I accept the accuracy of the figure. Sadly.
There is probably room for some argument around the edges because not all of those murdered were Jews. There were also gays, the disabled, political opponents and other minorities such as Roma. But no one approaching the records with the merest touch of integrity could doubt that Jews were the principal target of the Final Solution or that the numbers were of the order of 6m.
I know it isn't important in the scheme of things, but just from a historical point of view it's regrettable that the landing cards were destroyed by the Home Office because they probably would have been useful for future archivists, historians, sociologists, etc investigating that era of British and Commonwealth history.
That was my immediate thought as well. Whichever official made this decision had a very poor sense of history. I fear that data protection nonsense was probably higher in the pecking order.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
I am well aware it was dropped - but look at which side of the debate May was on, and her reaction at losing.
Look at the remainder of the Act which was not dropped. Does a civilised society really want to have a significant number of people in its midst who cannot legally rent a house, open a bank account, work or drive a car? How do we think people in that situation will be treated, particularly if (as is all too likely to be the case) they were already in the hands of people traffickers who had got them into the country in the first place?
A moments thought would show that you are condemning those people to exploitation and brutality making it almost impossible to escape. It is shameful enough without going on about the bits that didn’t make it.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
The entire Windrush scandal is the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by Theresa May, who made chasing positive headlines in the right wing press her guiding principle.
"Whilst approximately six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust, nearly one-third of all Americans (31%) and over four-in-ten Millennials (41% ) believe that two million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust."
doe anybody know of any equivalent polling from the UK?
It's not clear if that's just a poor grasp of history or something more sinister. A friend of mine at Cambridge about a decade ago told me that many of his (left-wing) friends believe the 6 million figure was an exaggeration.
Simple incredulity? After all, it’s three times the population of Wales!
For the avoidance of doubt I accept the accuracy of the figure. Sadly.
There is probably room for some argument around the edges because not all of those murdered were Jews. There were also gays, the disabled, political opponents and other minorities such as Roma. But no one approaching the records with the merest touch of integrity could doubt that Jews were the principal target of the Final Solution or that the numbers were of the order of 6m.
My understanding was that the figures were six million Jews and three million others. The non-Jew deaths do not come from the six million total but were in addition.
Interesting that 82% of New Zealanders are apparently in favour of free movement with the UK. I don't think they quite realise just how many British people would move there if they had the opportunity. It would probably be more than the current 4.5 million population of the country.
Really?
I love New Zealand, I really do. But it's like Wales. Lots of sheep. A rainy climate, and a rich accent. A few decent cricketers. Looked down upon by Australians.
I could see Brits moving to Australia. But NZ? I mean, really?
If we are going to judge places on what Australians think of them we may be depriving ourselves of a few fantastic opportunities. My experience of New Zealand is that it is a lot more relaxed than Australia, is more comfortable in its own skin and does not walk around with permanent chip on its shoulder. The scenery is more varied, the climate is more interesting, the people are friendlier, the lifestyle is fantastic. My brother emigrated there with nothing 20 years ago and has built himself a business and a great life. You can see him in action here:
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
The entire Windrush scandal is the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by Theresa May, who made chasing positive headlines in the right wing press her guiding principle.
I think that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I would blame Labour government for its studied indifference (at best, even putting the rub their faces in it mentality to one side) about immigration resulting in a system that was completely unfit for purpose and incapable of responding to public concern.
I would blame David Cameron and his cynical "tens of thousands" pledge.
I would blame the Tory government that promulgated the 2016 Act.
I would blame parts of our media who whip up hysteria about immigration whilst at the same time running sob stories for the one they think deserving.
I would blame our current Home Secretary who has supported these policies.
I suspect that in the case of the WIndrush records there was no "deliberate decision" by Mrs May, I suspect it was made either before her time or much further down the food chain but if the current rules were not in place the destruction of records would have been a matter of frustration for historians rather than a cause of injustice.
But yes, whatever her motivations and whatever pressure she was under from her then boss Mrs May has to accept the primary responsibility for the mind set which allowed decisions such as these to be taken. It is a terrible blot on her record and she should be ashamed of herself.
2016 also saw Zac Goldsmith’s disgustingly racist campaign to be mayor, courtesy of the odious Lynton Crosby I am led to believe. It does seem that 2016 was indeed a turning point for normalising racism.
Cuckoo.
??
Another who post bollocks on turning point for normalising racism.
Racism has always been here, from the brown shirts,thousands who supported the national front until recently the BNP so don't come all high and mighty that it's a recent thing because you lost the EU vote.
Exactly, and it always will be. It is natural for minorities whose numbers are significant and noticeable (by differences e.g. in physical appearance, practices, behaviour, prominence in particular business/political spheres) to be resented by the native population. It is the way of the world, and it stretches to the leadership of both major political parties in the UK, as evidenced by recent threads on this site. Is it any different to 1968, when Powell made his infamous speech, or 1947, when synagogues were attacked in England in response to what was happening in Palestine?
Interesting that 82% of New Zealanders are apparently in favour of free movement with the UK. I don't think they quite realise just how many British people would move there if they had the opportunity. It would probably be more than the current 4.5 million population of the country.
Really?
I love New Zealand, I really do. But it's like Wales. Lots of sheep. A rainy climate, and a rich accent. A few decent cricketers. Looked down upon by Australians.
I could see Brits moving to Australia. But NZ? I mean, really?
If we are going to judge places on what Australians think of them we may be depriving ourselves of a few fantastic opportunities. My experience of New Zealand is that it is a lot more relaxed than Australia, is more comfortable in its own skin and does not walk around with permanent chip on its shoulder. The scenery is more varied, the climate is more interesting, the people are friendlier, the lifestyle is fantastic. My brother emigrated there with nothing 20 years ago and has built himself a business and a great life. You can see him in action here:
I lived in NZ for a year, and it is a lovely country, the West Coast can be formidable wet, but the East coast has a delightful climate, like a good British summer day, but consistently so and most of the year.
It is not a wealthy country compared with Australia, being much the same per capita GDP as us, albeit with fewer extremes. It has long been one of the major sources of migrants to Australia.
There is an interesting film on Netflix "Hunt for the Wilderpeople" which brought back memories of the Wilderness, and some of the NZ hillbilly culture.
I was head hunted for a job there last year, and quite tempted.
"Whilst approximately six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust, nearly one-third of all Americans (31%) and over four-in-ten Millennials (41% ) believe that two million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust."
doe anybody know of any equivalent polling from the UK?
It's not clear if that's just a poor grasp of history or something more sinister. A friend of mine at Cambridge about a decade ago told me that many of his (left-wing) friends believe the 6 million figure was an exaggeration.
Simple incredulity? After all, it’s three times the population of Wales!
For the avoidance of doubt I accept the accuracy of the figure. Sadly.
There is probably room for some argument around the edges because not all of those murdered were Jews. There were also gays, the disabled, political opponents and other minorities such as Roma. But no one approaching the records with the merest touch of integrity could doubt that Jews were the principal target of the Final Solution or that the numbers were of the order of 6m.
My understanding was that the figures were six million Jews and three million others. The non-Jew deaths do not come from the six million total but were in addition.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
I am well aware it was dropped - but look at which side of the debate May was on, and her reaction at losing.
Look at the remainder of the Act which was not dropped. Does a civilised society really want to have a significant number of people in its midst who cannot legally rent a house, open a bank account, work or drive a car? How do we think people in that situation will be treated, particularly if (as is all too likely to be the case) they were already in the hands of people traffickers who had got them into the country in the first place?
A moments thought would show that you are condemning those people to exploitation and brutality making it almost impossible to escape. It is shameful enough without going on about the bits that didn’t make it.
Quite - and I have been arguing precisely that.
I think you are missing my point (which I might have made more clearly in the first place...), though, which was a rebuttal to all those claiming this is just 'unintended consequences' for which the PM and former Home Secretary bears no direct responsibility.
The education measures were amogst the most illiberal proposed for inclusion in the bill, and as the article points out: "...The measures were dropped from the Immigration Bill, with Mrs May understood to be furious."
Former US Attourney General Eric Holder appeared on The Daily Show a couple of hours ago and said he’s seriously exploring a run for Democrat nominee in 2020.
Betfair don’t even have him listed yet, I’ve asked them to add him.
Interesting that 82% of New Zealanders are apparently in favour of free movement with the UK. I don't think they quite realise just how many British people would move there if they had the opportunity. It would probably be more than the current 4.5 million population of the country.
Really?
I love New Zealand, I really do. But it's like Wales. Lots of sheep. A rainy climate, and a rich accent. A few decent cricketers. Looked down upon by Australians.
I could see Brits moving to Australia. But NZ? I mean, really?
If we are going to judge places on what Australians think of them we may be depriving ourselves of a few fantastic opportunities. My experience of New Zealand is that it is a lot more relaxed than Australia, is more comfortable in its own skin and does not walk around with permanent chip on its shoulder. The scenery is more varied, the climate is more interesting, the people are friendlier, the lifestyle is fantastic. My brother emigrated there with nothing 20 years ago and has built himself a business and a great life. You can see him in action here:
I lived in NZ for a year, and it is a lovely country, the West Coast can be formidable wet, but the East coast has a delightful climate, like a good British summer day, but consistently so and most of the year.
It is not a wealthy country compared with Australia, being much the same per capita GDP as us, albeit with fewer extremes. It has long been one of the major sources of migrants to Australia.
There is an interesting film on Netflix "Hunt for the Wilderpeople" which brought back memories of the Wilderness, and some of the NZ hillbilly culture.
I was head hunted for a job there last year, and quite tempted.
I absolutely love this scene from the real star of LOTR: New Zealand. How can anyone with any soul not be attracted by country like this?
This was the last item (or close to it, was very late) in the BBC's coverage last night. With Windrush and Syria/Salisbury, I could see why it wouldn't top the bill, but it's a tremendously serious problem. We have racially motivated, persistent and serious abuse of our elected politicians, and those who stand up against said racism, and it deserves to be far higher up the agenda.
F1: Ricciardo's in a weird position. Good enough to drive at any of the top teams, and he's got options, but he won't be a de facto number one anyone because of Verstappen, Vettel and Hamilton. Personally, I think he'll be off to Mercedes. Could be wrong: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43805228
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days Act.
The fact such a proposal was even madee what the story is here.
The entire Windrush scandal is the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by Theresa May, who made chasing positive headlines in the right wing press her guiding principle.
I think that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I would blame Labour government for its studied indifference (at best, even putting the rub their faces in it mentality to one side) about immigration resulting in a system that was completely unfit for purpose and incapable of responding to public concern.
I would blame David Cameron and his cynical "tens of thousands" pledge.
I would blame the Tory government that promulgated the 2016 Act.
I would blame parts of our media who whip up hysteria about immigration whilst at the same time running sob stories for the one they think deserving.
I would blame our current Home Secretary who has supported these policies.
I suspect that in the case of the WIndrush records there was no "deliberate decision" by Mrs May, I suspect it was made either before her time or much further down the food chain but if the current rules were not in place the destruction of records would have been a matter of frustration for historians rather than a cause of injustice.
But yes, whatever her motivations and whatever pressure she was under from her then boss Mrs May has to accept the primary responsibility for the mind set which allowed decisions such as these to be taken. It is a terrible blot on her record and she should be ashamed of herself.
May created the hostile environment. She made up stories about cats and deportations. She refused to remove students from the immigration figures. She sent immigrant-bashing messages on vans around the country. She went on raids looking for illegals. May very deliberately created a regime and a mindset whose first principle is a presumption that immigrants are illegal and have to go through hopps to prove they’re not. She never gave a second thought to the consequences of that because she didn’t care. In that way, she’s very similar to Corbyn and his approach to anti-Semitism.
Interesting that 82% of New Zealanders are apparently in favour of free movement with the UK. I don't think they quite realise just how many British people would move there if they had the opportunity. It would probably be more than the current 4.5 million population of the country.
Really?
I love New Zealand, I really do. But it's like Wales. Lots of sheep. A rainy climate, and a rich accent. A few decent cricketers. Looked down upon by Australians.
I could see Brits moving to Australia. But NZ? I mean, really?
If we are going to judge places on what Australians think of them we may be depriving ourselves of a few fantastic opportunities. My experience of New Zealand is that it is a lot more relaxed than Australia, is more comfortable in its own skin and does not walk around with permanent chip on its shoulder. The scenery is more varied, the climate is more interesting, the people are friendlier, the lifestyle is fantastic. My brother emigrated there with nothing 20 years ago and has built himself a business and a great life. You can see him in action here:
I lived in NZ for a year, and it is a lovely country, the West Coast can be formidable wet, but the East coast has a delightful climate, like a good British summer day, but consistently so and most of the year.
It is not a wealthy country compared with Australia, being much the same per capita GDP as us, albeit with fewer extremes. It has long been one of the major sources of migrants to Australia.
There is an interesting film on Netflix "Hunt for the Wilderpeople" which brought back memories of the Wilderness, and some of the NZ hillbilly culture.
I was head hunted for a job there last year, and quite tempted.
Friend of mine works as an instructor at a flying school, he’s spent the last two decades working in the UK in the summer and in NZ in the, err, summer. Lucky bastard.
Jeremy Corbyn is evidently doing what he regards to be the bare minimum on the subject. I expect he’ll get away with that too.
Race has re-entered politics with a vengeance after the EU referendum. Sadly, none of the Leavers on here who so stridently condemn Jeremy Corbyn have yet found themselves able to accept that the Leave campaign pandered to xenophobia. They should concentrate on getting their own house in order before luxuriating in condemning opponents.
Excuse me but:-
1. Not all the people on here condemning Corbyn are Leavers and some have condemned the way the Leave campaign spoke about immigration and the language used by our politicians since the referendum; and
2. Problems with anti-semitism in Labour and Corbyn’s attitude to it predated the referendum. Corbyn was criticised precisely because of his history and background when he was a candidate for leader because of the concern that he would drag the Labour party down to his level.
June 2016 was not some sort of Year Zero for racist/xenophobic attitudes.
I agree with all of your points.
However, June 2016, while not Year Zero, was a watershed. It was the moment when pandering to xenophobia won an election. The consequences of that discovery are coursing through the political system, as emboldened politicians of all stripes seek to otherise unattractive outsiders who can be made into suitable hate figures. Those Leavers shedding crocodile tears have to reflect on their own part in creating this environment. They have normalised this behaviour and brought it into the mainstream.
You do post bollocks,before 2016 we were getting BNP Councillors voted in and thousands voting for a far more racist party,years before we left the EU.
Britain has gone from a few nut-nuts at the fringes being voted for by sad losers to racism becoming a part of mainstream politics. The referendum was the watershed, when people who claim to be moderates decided that winning the referendum justified campaigning under a banner of xenophobic lies.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
I am well aware it was dropped - but look at which side of the debate May was on, and her reaction at losing.
Look at the remainder of the Act which was not dropped. Does a civilised society really want to have a significant number of people in its midst who cannot legally rent a house, open a bank account, work or drive a car? How do we think people in that situation will be treated, particularly if (as is all too likely to be the case) they were already in the hands of people traffickers who had got them into the country in the first place?
A moments thought would show that you are condemning those people to exploitation and brutality making it almost impossible to escape. It is shameful enough without going on about the bits that didn’t make it.
Quite - and I have been arguing precisely that.
I think you are missing my point (which I might have made more clearly in the first place...), though, which was a rebuttal to all those claiming this is just 'unintended consequences' for which the PM and former Home Secretary bears no direct responsibility.
The education measures were amogst the most illiberal proposed for inclusion in the bill, and as the article points out: "...The measures were dropped from the Immigration Bill, with Mrs May understood to be furious."
I honestly think we are on the same page on this one.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
The entire Windrush scandal is the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by Theresa May, who made chasing positive headlines in the right wing press her guiding principle.
I think that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I would blame Labour government for its studied indifference (at best, even putting the rub their faces in it mentality to one side) about immigration resulting in a system that was completely unfit for purpose and incapable of responding to public concern.
I would blame David Cameron and his cynical "tens of thousands" pledge.
I would blame the Tory government that promulgated the 2016 Act.
I would blame parts of our media who whip up hysteria about immigration whilst at the same time running sob stories for the one they think deserving.
I would blame our current Home Secretary who has supported these policies.
I suspect that in the case of the WIndrush records there was no "deliberate decision" by Mrs May, I suspect it was made either before her time or much further down the food chain but if the current rules were not in place the destruction of records would have been a matter of frustration for historians rather than a cause of injustice....
The irony is that this is the same department which expects people to produce detailed records going back a decade or more - based on rules brought in pretty recently - or face possible deportation.
In an hour of listening to the Today programme this morning I have heard not a single reference to yesterday's electrifying debate. Not even in the paper review. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days Act.
The fact such a proposal was even madee what the story is here.
The entire Windrush scandal is the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by Theresa May, who made chasing positive headlines in the right wing press her guiding principle.
I think that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I would blame Labour government for its studied indifference (at best, even putting the rub their faces in it mentality to one side) about immigration resulting in a system that was completely unfit for purpose and incapable of responding to public concern.
I would blame David Cameron and his cynical "tens of thousands" pledge.
I would blame the Tory government that promulgated the 2016 Act.
I would blame parts of our media who whip up hysteria about immigration whilst at the same time running sob stories for the one they think deserving.
I would blame our current Home Secretary who has supported these policies.
I suspect that in the case of the WIndrush records there was no "deliberate decision" by Mrs May, I suspect it was made either before her time or much further down the food chain but if the current rules were not in place the destruction of records would have been a matter of frustration for historians rather than a cause of injustice.
But yes, whatever her motivations and whatever pressure she was under from her then boss Mrs May has to accept the primary responsibility for the mind set which allowed decisions such as these to be taken. It is a terrible blot on her record and she should be ashamed of herself.
May created the hostile environment. She made up stories about cats and deportations. She refused to remove students from the immigration figures. She sent immigrant-bashing messages on vans around the country. She went on raids looking for illegals. May very deliberately created a regime and a mindset whose first principle is a presumption that immigrants are illegal and have to go through hopps to prove they’re not. She never gave a second thought to the consequences of that because she didn’t care. In that way, she’s very similar to Corbyn and his approach to anti-Semitism.
I don't dispute any of that. But she did not do this, nor was she allowed to do this alone.
Jeremy Corbyn is evidently doing what he regards to be the bare minimum on the subject. I expect he’ll get away with that too.
Race has re-entered politics with a vengeance after the EU referendum. Sadly, none of the Leavers on here who so stridently condemn Jeremy Corbyn have yet found themselves able to accept that the Leave campaign pandered to xenophobia. They should concentrate on getting their own house in order before luxuriating in condemning opponents.
Excuse me but:-
1. Not all the people on here condemning Corbyn are Leavers and some have condemned the way the Leave campaign spoke about immigration and the language used by our politicians since the referendum; and
2. Problems with anti-semitism in Labour and Corbyn’s attitude to it predated the referendum. Corbyn was criticised precisely because of his history and background when he was a candidate for leader because of the concern that he would drag the Labour party down to his level.
June 2016 was not some sort of Year Zero for racist/xenophobic attitudes.
I agree with all of your points.
However, June 2016, while not Year Zero, was a watershed. It was the moment when pandering to xenophobia won an election. The consequences of that discovery are coursing through the political system, as emboldened politicians of all stripes seek to otherise unattractive outsiders who can be made into suitable hate figures. Those Leavers shedding crocodile tears have to reflect on their own part in creating this environment. They have normalised this behaviour and brought it into the mainstream.
You do post bollocks,before 2016 we were getting BNP Councillors voted in and thousands voting for a far more racist party,years before we left the EU.
Britain has gone from a few nut-nuts at the fringes being voted for by sad losers to racism becoming a part of mainstream politics. The referendum was the watershed, when people who claim to be moderates decided that winning the referendum justified campaigning under a banner of xenophobic lies.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
I am well aware it was dropped - but look at which side of the debate May was on, and her reaction at losing.
Look at the remainder of the Act which was not dropped. Does a civilised society really want to have a significant number of people in its midst who cannot legally rent a house, open a bank account, work or drive a car? How do we think people in that situation will be treated, particularly if (as is all too likely to be the case) they were already in the hands of people traffickers who had got them into the country in the first place?
A moments thought would show that you are condemning those people to exploitation and brutality making it almost impossible to escape. It is shameful enough without going on about the bits that didn’t make it.
Quite - and I have been arguing precisely that.
I think you are missing my point (which I might have made more clearly in the first place...), though, which was a rebuttal to all those claiming this is just 'unintended consequences' for which the PM and former Home Secretary bears no direct responsibility.
The education measures were amogst the most illiberal proposed for inclusion in the bill, and as the article points out: "...The measures were dropped from the Immigration Bill, with Mrs May understood to be furious."
I honestly think we are on the same page on this one.
Very much so - I wasn't intending any kind of argument against you.
In an hour of listening to the Today programme this morning I have heard not a single reference to yesterday's electrifying debate. Not even in the paper review. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
You clearly got up at the wrong time - I heard a reasonably long piece. But it was the parliamentary report, rather than a story in its own right.
Jeremy Corbyn is evidently doing what he regards to be the bare minimum on the subject. I expect he’ll get away with that too.
Race has re-entered politics with a vengeance after the EU referendum. Sadly, none of the Leavers on here who so stridently condemn Jeremy Corbyn have yet found themselves able to accept that the Leave campaign pandered to xenophobia. They should concentrate on getting their own house in order before luxuriating in condemning opponents.
Excuse me but:-
1. Not all the people on here condemning Corbyn are Leavers and some have condemned the way the Leave campaign spoke about immigration and the language used by our politicians since the referendum; and
2. Problems with anti-semitism in Labour and Corbyn’s attitude to it predated the referendum. Corbyn was criticised precisely because of his history and background when he was a candidate for leader because of the concern that he would drag the Labour party down to his level.
June 2016 was not some sort of Year Zero for racist/xenophobic attitudes.
I agree with all of your points.
However, June 2016, while not Year Zero, was a watershed. It was the moment when pandering to xenophobia won an election. The consequences of that discovery are coursing through the political system, as emboldened politicians of all stripes seek to otherise unattractive outsiders who can be made into suitable hate figures. Those Leavers shedding crocodile tears have to reflect on their own part in creating this environment. They have normalised this behaviour and brought it into the mainstream.
You do post bollocks,before 2016 we were getting BNP Councillors voted in and thousands voting for a far more racist party,years before we left the EU.
Britain has gone from a few nut-nuts at the fringes being voted for by sad losers to racism becoming a part of mainstream politics. The referendum was the watershed, when people who claim to be moderates decided that winning the referendum justified campaigning under a banner of xenophobic lies.
The fallout will continue for years.
So the deliberate strategy to “rub the right’s noses in diversity” didn’t quite work out according to plan?
If that’s your apologia, it needs work.
British politics is seeing the emergence, or re-emergence of two groups: those who don’t mind using Jews for target practice and those who demonise Muslims. Far too many others have decided to make common cause with one or other of those groups for electoral advantage.
"Whilst approximately six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust, nearly one-third of all Americans (31%) and over four-in-ten Millennials (41% ) believe that two million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust."
doe anybody know of any equivalent polling from the UK?
It's not clear if that's just a poor grasp of history or something more sinister. A friend of mine at Cambridge about a decade ago told me that many of his (left-wing) friends believe the 6 million figure was an exaggeration.
Simple incredulity? After all, it’s three times the population of Wales!
For the avoidance of doubt I accept the accuracy of the figure. Sadly.
For a lot of people, it's probably ignorance and/or difficulty with numbers. I expect that the proportion who reject the figure of 6m for ideological reasons is much smaller.
Interesting that 82% of New Zealanders are apparently in favour of free movement with the UK. I don't think they quite realise just how many British people would move there if they had the opportunity. It would probably be more than the current 4.5 million population of the country.
Really?
I love New Zealand, I really do. But it's like Wales. Lots of sheep. A rainy climate, and a rich accent. A few decent cricketers. Looked down upon by Australians.
I could see Brits moving to Australia. But NZ? I mean, really?
If we are going to judge places on what Australians think of them we may be depriving ourselves of a few fantastic opportunities. My experience of New Zealand is that it is a lot more relaxed than Australia, is more comfortable in its own skin and does not walk around with permanent chip on its shoulder. The scenery is more varied, the climate is more interesting, the people are friendlier, the lifestyle is fantastic. My brother emigrated there with nothing 20 years ago and has built himself a business and a great life. You can see him in action here:
I lived in NZ for a year, and it is a lovely country, the West Coast can be formidable wet, but the East coast has a delightful climate, like a good British summer day, but consistently so and most of the year.
It is not a wealthy country compared with Australia, being much the same per capita GDP as us, albeit with fewer extremes. It has long been one of the major sources of migrants to Australia.
There is an interesting film on Netflix "Hunt for the Wilderpeople" which brought back memories of the Wilderness, and some of the NZ hillbilly culture.
I was head hunted for a job there last year, and quite tempted.
The West Coast is something of a challenge. I will never forget Cape Foulwind!!
In my - admitedly limited - experience there are a fair few Aussies in NZ, too.
OT. I've just heard the monumental news that Accrington Stanley have got promotion. That's Accrington Stanley made famous by a milk commercial and a little liverpudlian boy....
Alan Blake who directed that commercial knew when he saw the script that he'd got a winner (not always obvious) so he went to town on the casting and scoured the schools in Liverpool.....
About six months later I worked with the same boy. 100% authentic. Lots of people on my shoot asked him to do his Accrington Stanley ad and he just rolled it off perfectly every time he was asked.
When you're filming kids you have to finish by 5PM but I was running late so I asked his Granddad (chaperone) if he minded if I ran a little late? 'No proplem!' he said in his broad scouse accent. 'This lad's good till midnight!'
1. Not all the people on here condemning Corbyn are Leavers and some have condemned the way the Leave campaign spoke about immigration and the language used by our politicians since the referendum; and
2. Problems with anti-semitism in Labour and Corbyn’s attitude to it predated the referendum. Corbyn was criticised precisely because of his history and background when he was a candidate for leader because of the concern that he would drag the Labour party down to his level.
June 2016 was not some sort of Year Zero for racist/xenophobic attitudes.
I agree with all of your points.
However, June 2016, while not Year Zero, was a watershed. It was the moment when pandering to xenophobia won an election. The consequences of that discovery are coursing through the political system, as emboldened politicians of all stripes seek to otherise unattractive outsiders who can be made into suitable hate figures. Those Leavers shedding crocodile tears have to reflect on their own part in creating this environment. They have normalised this behaviour and brought it into the mainstream.
You do post bollocks,before 2016 we were getting BNP Councillors voted in and thousands voting for a far more racist party,years before we left the EU.
Britain has gone from a few nut-nuts at the fringes being voted for by sad losers to racism becoming a part of mainstream politics. The referendum was the watershed, when people who claim to be moderates decided that winning the referendum justified campaigning under a banner of xenophobic lies.
The fallout will continue for years.
So the deliberate strategy to “rub the right’s noses in diversity” didn’t quite work out according to plan?
If that’s your apologia, it needs work.
British politics is seeing the emergence, or re-emergence of two groups: those who don’t mind using Jews for target practice and those who demonise Muslims. Far too many others have decided to make common cause with one or other of those groups for electoral advantage.
On that point I agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s your trying to bring everything back to the EU referendum where we will continue to disagree.
In an hour of listening to the Today programme this morning I have heard not a single reference to yesterday's electrifying debate. Not even in the paper review. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
Let's face it. Even that stalwart anti-anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn couldn't even be bothered to listen to it at the time.
1. Not all the people on here condemning Corbyn are Leavers and some have condemned the way the Leave campaign spoke about immigration and the language used by our politicians since the referendum; and
2. Problems with anti-semitism in Labour and Corbyn’s attitude to it predated the referendum. Corbyn was criticised precisely because of his history and background when he was a candidate for leader because of the concern that he would drag the Labour party down to his level.
June 2016 was not some sort of Year Zero for racist/xenophobic attitudes.
I agree with all of your points.
However, June 2016, while not Year Zero, was a watershed. It was the moment when pandering to xenophobia won an election. The consequences of that discovery are coursing through the political system, as emboldened politicians of all stripes seek to otherise unattractive outsiders who can be made into suitable hate figures. Those Leavers shedding crocodile tears have to reflect on their own part in creating this environment. They have normalised this behaviour and brought it into the mainstream.
You do post bollocks,before 2016 we were getting BNP Councillors voted in and thousands voting for a far more racist party,years before we left the EU.
Britain has gone from a few nut-nuts at the fringes being voted for by sad losers to racism becoming a part of mainstream politics. The referendum was the watershed, when people who claim to be moderates decided that winning the referendum justified campaigning under a banner of xenophobic lies.
The fallout will continue for years.
So the deliberate strategy to “rub the right’s noses in diversity” didn’t quite work out according to plan?
If that’s your apologia, it needs work.
British politics is seeing the emergence, or re-emergence of two groups: those who don’t mind using Jews for target practice and those who demonise Muslims. Far too many others have decided to make common cause with one or other of those groups for electoral advantage.
On that point I agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s your trying to bring everything back to the EU referendum where I disagree.
The referendum is the prime example, where so-called moderates used fear of Muslims to win. Many of those so-called moderates (or pick-n-mix race-baiters to be more accurate) are now opining about anti-Semitism. But they are a huge part of the problem.
For anyone doubting that May holds much responsibility for the Home Office attitudes and policies which caused the Windrush fiasco, this article should make interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395 (It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
As I said a couple of days Act.
The fact such a proposal was even madee what the story is here.
The entire Windrush scandal is the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by Theresa May, who made chasing positive headlines in the right wing press her guiding principle.
I think that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I would blame Labour government for its studied indifference (at best, even putting the rub their faces in it mentality to one side) about immigration resulting in a system that was completely unfit for purpose and incapable of responding to public concern.
I would blame David Cameron and his cynical "tens of thousands" pledge.
I would blame the Tory government that promulgated the 2016 Act.
I would blame parts of our media who whip up hysteria about immigration whilst at the same time running sob stories for the one they think deserving.
I would blame our current Home Secretary who has supported these policies.
I suspect that in the case of the WIndrush records there was no "deliberate decision" by Mrs May, I suspect it was made either before her time or much further down the food chain but if the current rules were not in place the destruction of records would have been a matter of frustration for historians rather than a cause of injustice.
But yesnd she should be ashamed of herself.
May created the hostile environment. She made up stories about cats and deportations. She refused to remove students from the immigration figures. She sent immigrant-bashing messages on vans around the country. She went on raids looking for illegals. May very deliberately created a regime and a mindset whose first principle is a presumption that immigrants are illegal and have to go through hopps to prove they’re not. She never gave a second thought to the consequences of that because she didn’t care. In that way, she’s very similar to Corbyn and his approach to anti-Semitism.
I don't dispute any of that. But she did not do this, nor was she allowed to do this alone.
Been to NZ a couple of times; seems really good place to be. One of the mistakes my father made in his parenting was to talk me out of going there when I was 20 or so, on the grounds that it would ‘break up my mothers heart!’ I wouldn’t have gone until I’d finished studying of course, but it would have given me a different mindset while doing so. 40 years later a much younger cousin asked my advice about going there; I advised him to go for it and he’s never looked back!
Incidentally around 20 years after the conversation with my father I told my mother about it. ‘Silly old fool’ she sniffed; ‘Would have enjoyed coming to visit you!"
In an hour of listening to the Today programme this morning I have heard not a single reference to yesterday's electrifying debate. Not even in the paper review. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
Let's face it. Even that stalwart anti-anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn couldn't even be bothered to listen to it at the time.
Indeed. But, given some of the obscure topics which are given air time on the Today programme these days, it beggars belief.
1. Not all the people on here condemning Corbyn are Leavers and some have condemned the way the Leave campaign spoke about immigration and the language used by our politicians since the referendum; and
2. Problems with anti-semitism in Labour and Corbyn’s attitude to
June 2016 was not some sort of Year Zero for racist/xenophobic attitudes.
I agree with all of your points.
However, June 2016, while not Year Zero, was a watershed. It was the moment when pandering to xenophobia won an election. The consequences of that discovery are coursing through the political system, as emboldened politicians of all stripes seek to otherise unattractive outsiders who can be made into suitable hate figures. Those Leavers shedding crocodile tears have to reflect on their own part in creating this environment. They have normalised this behaviour and brought it into the mainstream.
You do post bollocks,before 2016 we were getting BNP Councillors voted in and thousands voting for a far more racist party,years before we left the EU.
Britain has gone from a few nut-nuts at the fringes being voted for by sad losers to racism becoming a part of mainstream politics. The referendum was the watershed, when people who claim to be moderates decided that winning the referendum justified campaigning under a banner of xenophobic lies.
The fallout will continue for years.
So the deliberate strategy to “rub the right’s noses in diversity” didn’t quite work out according to plan?
If that’s your apologia, it needs work.
British politics is seeing the emergence, or re-emergence of two groups: those who don’t mind using Jews for target practice and those who demonise Muslims. Far too many others have decided to make common cause with one or other of those groups for electoral advantage.
On that point I agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s your trying to bring everything back to the EU referendum where I disagree.
The referendum is the prime example, where so-called moderates used fear of Muslims to win. Many of those so-called moderates (or pick-n-mix race-baiters to be more accurate) are now opining about anti-Semitism. But they are a huge part of the problem.
There are many millions of people who voted Leave, oppose anti-semitism, and are in favour of allowing people who are here legally to remain here. We voted and campaigned for Leave because we think it's in the country's interest to leave the EU.
Been to NZ a couple of times; seems really good place to be. One of the mistakes my father made in his parenting was to talk me out of going there when I was 20 or so, on the grounds that it would ‘break up my mothers heart!’ I wouldn’t have gone until I’d finished studying of course, but it would have given me a different mindset while doing so. 40 years later a much younger cousin asked my advice about going there; I advised him to go for it and he’s never looked back!
Incidentally around 20 years after the conversation with my father I told my mother about it. ‘Silly old fool’ she sniffed; ‘Would have enjoyed coming to visit you!"
Speaking as a Dad I think that Dads sometimes project onto Mums what they find it difficult to say for themselves. Your Dad was just telling you that he loved you!
Been to NZ a couple of times; seems really good place to be. One of the mistakes my father made in his parenting was to talk me out of going there when I was 20 or so, on the grounds that it would ‘break up my mothers heart!’ I wouldn’t have gone until I’d finished studying of course, but it would have given me a different mindset while doing so. 40 years later a much younger cousin asked my advice about going there; I advised him to go for it and he’s never looked back!
Incidentally around 20 years after the conversation with my father I told my mother about it. ‘Silly old fool’ she sniffed; ‘Would have enjoyed coming to visit you!"
Speaking as a Dad I think that Dads sometimes project onto Mums what they find it difficult to say for themselves. Your Dad was just telling you that he loved you!
In an hour of listening to the Today programme this morning I have heard not a single reference to yesterday's electrifying debate. Not even in the paper review. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
Let's face it. Even that stalwart anti-anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn couldn't even be bothered to listen to it at the time.
Indeed. But, given some of the obscure topics which are given air time on the Today programme these days, it beggars belief.
2nd item on ITV news last night. 25mins in for BBC news, just seconds before football.
One should of course remind ourselves that Diane Abbott was placed on this earth to make parliamentary pillocks appear as great statesman and we should be eternally thankful for the electors of Hackney North and Stoke Newington for their service to the nation.
Been to NZ a couple of times; seems really good place to be. One of the mistakes my father made in his parenting was to talk me out of going there when I was 20 or so, on the grounds that it would ‘break up my mothers heart!’ I wouldn’t have gone until I’d finished studying of course, but it would have given me a different mindset while doing so. 40 years later a much younger cousin asked my advice about going there; I advised him to go for it and he’s never looked back!
Incidentally around 20 years after the conversation with my father I told my mother about it. ‘Silly old fool’ she sniffed; ‘Would have enjoyed coming to visit you!"
Speaking as a Dad I think that Dads sometimes project onto Mums what they find it difficult to say for themselves. Your Dad was just telling you that he loved you!
Spot on.
You may be right. Benefit of the doubt and all that. He was good at getting it wrong, though, especially when it came to advice!
Bloody Normans,coming over here, raping our women,taking all our jobs and benefits and they get everything,I wany my country back.Send them back to Normany and send the Angles back to Anglesey and the Saxons back to Saxony.Don't talk to me about the Danes-they can sling their hook as well.
In an hour of listening to the Today programme this morning I have heard not a single reference to yesterday's electrifying debate. Not even in the paper review. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
Unacceptable definitely. Unbelievable, hardly. The BBC's reporting of politics this last couple of days has been an exercise in limiting damage to Corbyn. This is just another example. How can any serious paper review ignore the lead story in the Times and Telegraph?
1. Not all the people on here condemning Corbyn are Leavers and some have condemned the way the Leave campaign spoke about immigration and the language used by our politicians since the referendum; and
2. Problems with anti-semitism in Labour and Corbyn’s attitude to it predated the referendum. Corbyn was criticised precisely because of his history and background when he was a candidate for leader because of the concern that he would drag the Labour party down to his level.
June 2016 was not some sort of Year Zero for racist/xenophobic attitudes.
I agree with all of your points.
However, June 2016, while not Year Zero, was a watershed. It was the moment when pandering to we left the EU.
Britain has gone from a few nut-nuts at the fringes being voted for by sad losers to racism becoming a part of mainstream politics. The referendum was the watershed, when people who claim to be moderates decided that winning the referendum justified campaigning under a banner of xenophobic lies.
The fallout will continue for years.
So the deliberate strategy to “rub the right’s noses in diversity” didn’t quite work out according to plan?
If that’s your apologia, it needs work.
British politics is seeing the emergence, or re-emergence of two groups: those who don’t mind using Jews for target practice and those who demonise Muslims. Far too many others have decided to make common cause with one or other of those groups for electoral advantage.
On that point I agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s your trying to bring everything back to the EU referendum where I disagree.
The referendum is the prime example, where so-called moderates used fear of Muslims to win. Many of those so-called moderates (or pick-n-mix race-baiters to be more accurate) are now opining about anti-Semitism. But they are a huge part of the problem.
Fortunately it can't happen in the EU: Matthew Goodwin "
"must have missed the uproar on Twitter about Macron's immigration legislation that proposes to detain the children of failed asylum seekers before being expelled and to prosecute those who help illegal migrants"
Mr. Pete, the actual numbers of Normans coming over was small. With the possible exceptions of the Anglo-Saxons (some dispute it), there has been no large scale migration to the UK/England until the last century or so.
For example, Jews in medieval times never numbered more than a couple of thousand (came over with William, got thrown out a few centuries later).
There are many millions of people who voted Leave, oppose anti-semitism, and are in favour of allowing people who are here legally to remain here. We voted and campaigned for Leave because we think it's in the country's interest to leave the EU.
Far too nice a day to be engaging with the frothing Monomaniac Meeks. Laters all....
In an hour of listening to the Today programme this morning I have heard not a single reference to yesterday's electrifying debate. Not even in the paper review. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
Unacceptable definitely. Unbelievable, hardly. The BBC's reporting of politics this last couple of days has been an exercise in limiting damage to Corbyn. This is just another example. How can any serious paper review ignore the lead story in the Times and Telegraph?
Is this something to do with local elections? Are BBC being super cautious? Can't think of another reason, that doesn't involve me in getting a tin foil hat.
Bloody Normans,coming over here, raping our women,taking all our jobs and benefits and they get everything,I wany my country back.Send them back to Normany and send the Angles back to Anglesey and the Saxons back to Saxony.Don't talk to me about the Danes-they can sling their hook as well.
Too right. At least the Romans left once they was done, and we got some empty villas to use.
On NZ, it’s a wonderful landscape amalgam of Scotland, Norway, and parts of Italy. The quality of life is superb if you like beaches, sailing, hiking etc.
Unlike Australia we have no crocs, snakes, poisonous spiders or other nasties. And the heat in summer I’d pleasantly bearable (similar to South England but longer-lasting and more reliable).
Auckland is reasonably metropolitan these days and of course we invented that veritable icon of hipsterdom, the flat white.
Our politics are liberal, our people multi-hued, and we emerged from the financial crisis pretty much unscathed. The economy does very well on the back of dairy exports.
What’s not to like?
Admittedly you won’t find the kind of jobs that only London, Paris and New York can offer. But everything else is there.
Mr. W, ten years is the difference between Prime Minister Blair and Leader of the Opposition Corbyn.
Mr. Borough, you tinker.
Mr. kle4, I'm currently reading The Time Traveller's Guide to Restoration Britain. The Jews did return under Cromwell's time, though the reasons haven't been specified.
As I said a couple of days ago the 2016 Immigration Act was expressly and avowedly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. In my view it is a deeply illiberal piece of legislation but in this case it appears that the proposal was made, opposed by Nicky Morgan and dropped. It is not a part of the Act.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
The entire Windrush scandal is the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by Theresa May, who made chasing positive headlines in the right wing press her guiding principle.
I think that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I would blame Labour government for its studied indifference (at best, even putting the rub their faces in it mentality to one side) about immigration resulting in a system that was completely unfit for purpose and incapable of responding to public concern.
I would blame David Cameron and his cynical "tens of thousands" pledge.
I would blame the Tory government that promulgated the 2016 Act.
I would blame parts of our media who whip up hysteria about immigration whilst at the same time running sob stories for the one they think deserving.
I would blame our current Home Secretary who has supported these policies.
I suspect that in the case of the WIndrush records there was no "deliberate decision" by Mrs May, I suspect it was made either before her time or much further down the food chain but if the current rules were not in place the destruction of records would have been a matter of frustration for historians rather than a cause of injustice.
But yes, whatever her motivations and whatever pressure she was under from her then boss Mrs May has to accept the primary responsibility for the mind set which allowed decisions such as these to be taken. It is a terrible blot on her record and she should be ashamed of herself.
You miss the key issue.
Unlimited and unprepared for immigration from Eastern Europe led to the government attempting to look in control of the issue by deporting others:
' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last ditch legal challenge to keep her in the UK failed on Wednesday night. '
The entire Windrush scandal is the direct consequence of deliberate decisions made by Theresa May, who made chasing positive headlines in the right wing press her guiding principle.
I think that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I would blame Labour government for its studied indifference (at best, even putting the rub their faces in it mentality to one side) about immigration resulting in a system that was completely unfit for purpose and incapable of responding to public concern.
I would blame David Cameron and his cynical "tens of thousands" pledge.
I would blame the Tory government that promulgated the 2016 Act.
I would blame parts of our media who whip up hysteria about immigration whilst at the same time running sob stories for the one they think deserving.
I would blame our current Home Secretary who has supported these policies.
I suspect that in the case of the WIndrush records there was no "deliberate decision" by Mrs May, I suspect it was made either before her time or much further down the food chain but if the current rules were not in place the destruction of records would have been a matter of frustration for historians rather than a cause of injustice.
But yes, whatever her motivations and whatever pressure she was under from her then boss Mrs May has to accept the primary responsibility for the mind set which allowed decisions such as these to be taken. It is a terrible blot on her record and she should be ashamed of herself.
You miss the key issue.
Unlimited and unprepared for immigration from Eastern Europe led to the government attempting to look in control of the issue by deporting others:
' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last ditch legal challenge to keep her in the UK failed on Wednesday night. '
I remember in 1997 after Blair's landslide watching a program on elements of the election. In one piece they showed a loudspeaker van in the Blackburn constituency for the Conservatives saying 'don't vote for the Jew'. It was unpleasant but I wasn't shocked and neither was the program. It was just politics. Isn't it great how far we've moved from those times and largely thanks to the Blair governments. Such a pity about Iraq because he changed the climate like no one else has before or since. A real Ataturk
On NZ, it’s a wonderful landscape amalgam of Scotland, Norway, and parts of Italy. The quality of life is superb if you like beaches, sailing, hiking etc.
Unlike Australia we have no crocs, snakes, poisonous spiders or other nasties. And the heat in summer I’d pleasantly bearable (similar to South England but longer-lasting and more reliable).
Auckland is reasonably metropolitan these days and of course we invented that veritable icon of hipsterdom, the flat white.
Our politics are liberal, our people multi-hued, and we emerged from the financial crisis pretty much unscathed. The economy does very well on the back of dairy exports.
What’s not to like?
Admittedly you won’t find the kind of jobs that only London, Paris and New York can offer. But everything else is there.
On NZ, it’s a wonderful landscape amalgam of Scotland, Norway, and parts of Italy. The quality of life is superb if you like beaches, sailing, hiking etc.
Unlike Australia we have no crocs, snakes, poisonous spiders or other nasties. And the heat in summer I’d pleasantly bearable (similar to South England but longer-lasting and more reliable).
Auckland is reasonably metropolitan these days and of course we invented that veritable icon of hipsterdom, the flat white.
Our politics are liberal, our people multi-hued, and we emerged from the financial crisis pretty much unscathed. The economy does very well on the back of dairy exports.
What’s not to like?
Admittedly you won’t find the kind of jobs that only London, Paris and New York can offer. But everything else is there.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395
(It doesn’t reflect particularly well on Cameron, either.)
The no compromise attitude of Home Office officials was set from the top.
The fact such a proposal was even made does show the pressure the Home Office was under to deliver the “tens of thousands “ pledge but given the rejection I am not sure I see what the story is here.
A moments thought would show that you are condemning those people to exploitation and brutality making it almost impossible to escape. It is shameful enough without going on about the bits that didn’t make it.
For the avoidance of doubt I accept the accuracy of the figure. Sadly.
https://inner.kiwi/business-time/kiwi-paddleboarding-brand-aims-go-global/
I would blame Labour government for its studied indifference (at best, even putting the rub their faces in it mentality to one side) about immigration resulting in a system that was completely unfit for purpose and incapable of responding to public concern.
I would blame David Cameron and his cynical "tens of thousands" pledge.
I would blame the Tory government that promulgated the 2016 Act.
I would blame parts of our media who whip up hysteria about immigration whilst at the same time running sob stories for the one they think deserving.
I would blame our current Home Secretary who has supported these policies.
I suspect that in the case of the WIndrush records there was no "deliberate decision" by Mrs May, I suspect it was made either before her time or much further down the food chain but if the current rules were not in place the destruction of records would have been a matter of frustration for historians rather than a cause of injustice.
But yes, whatever her motivations and whatever pressure she was under from her then boss Mrs May has to accept the primary responsibility for the mind set which allowed decisions such as these to be taken. It is a terrible blot on her record and she should be ashamed of herself.
It is not a wealthy country compared with Australia, being much the same per capita GDP as us, albeit with fewer extremes. It has long been one of the major sources of migrants to Australia.
There is an interesting film on Netflix "Hunt for the Wilderpeople" which brought back memories of the Wilderness, and some of the NZ hillbilly culture.
I was head hunted for a job there last year, and quite tempted.
As @OldKIngCole says, the numbers are truly mindboggling. I was not in any way suggesting the Jewish figure was overstated.
I think you are missing my point (which I might have made more clearly in the first place...), though, which was a rebuttal to all those claiming this is just 'unintended consequences' for which the PM and former Home Secretary bears no direct responsibility.
The education measures were amogst the most illiberal proposed for inclusion in the bill, and as the article points out: "...The measures were dropped from the Immigration Bill, with Mrs May understood to be furious."
Former US Attourney General Eric Holder appeared on The Daily Show a couple of hours ago and said he’s seriously exploring a run for Democrat nominee in 2020.
Betfair don’t even have him listed yet, I’ve asked them to add him.
How can anyone with any soul not be attracted by country like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6LGJ7evrAg
This was the last item (or close to it, was very late) in the BBC's coverage last night. With Windrush and Syria/Salisbury, I could see why it wouldn't top the bill, but it's a tremendously serious problem. We have racially motivated, persistent and serious abuse of our elected politicians, and those who stand up against said racism, and it deserves to be far higher up the agenda.
F1: Ricciardo's in a weird position. Good enough to drive at any of the top teams, and he's got options, but he won't be a de facto number one anyone because of Verstappen, Vettel and Hamilton. Personally, I think he'll be off to Mercedes. Could be wrong:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43805228
Edited extra bit: anywhere*.
The fallout will continue for years.
But it was the parliamentary report, rather than a story in its own right.
British politics is seeing the emergence, or re-emergence of two groups: those who don’t mind using Jews for target practice and those who demonise Muslims. Far too many others have decided to make common cause with one or other of those groups for electoral advantage.
In my - admitedly limited - experience there are a fair few Aussies in NZ, too.
Alan Blake who directed that commercial knew when he saw the script that he'd got a winner (not always obvious) so he went to town on the casting and scoured the schools in Liverpool.....
About six months later I worked with the same boy. 100% authentic. Lots of people on my shoot asked him to do his Accrington Stanley ad and he just rolled it off perfectly every time he was asked.
When you're filming kids you have to finish by 5PM but I was running late so I asked his Granddad (chaperone) if he minded if I ran a little late? 'No proplem!' he said in his broad scouse accent. 'This lad's good till midnight!'
40 years later a much younger cousin asked my advice about going there; I advised him to go for it and he’s never looked back!
Incidentally around 20 years after the conversation with my father I told my mother about it. ‘Silly old fool’ she sniffed; ‘Would have enjoyed coming to visit you!"
Edited extra bit: as is this, from Diane Abbott:
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/986304523743481856
https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/04/17/2114254/online-tax-filers-will-get-extension-after-irs-payment-website-outage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43805365
Bloody Normans,coming over here, raping our women,taking all our jobs and benefits and they get everything,I wany my country back.Send them back to Normany and send the Angles back to Anglesey and the Saxons back to Saxony.Don't talk to me about the Danes-they can sling their hook as well.
For example, Jews in medieval times never numbered more than a couple of thousand (came over with William, got thrown out a few centuries later).
Mr. W, 13th. They were expelled in 1290 by Edward I.
Unlike Australia we have no crocs, snakes, poisonous spiders or other nasties. And the heat in summer I’d pleasantly bearable (similar to South England but longer-lasting and more reliable).
Auckland is reasonably metropolitan these days and of course we invented that veritable icon of hipsterdom, the flat white.
Our politics are liberal, our people multi-hued, and we emerged from the financial crisis pretty much unscathed. The economy does very well on the back of dairy exports.
What’s not to like?
Admittedly you won’t find the kind of jobs that only London, Paris and New York can offer. But everything else is there.
Mr. Borough, you tinker.
Mr. kle4, I'm currently reading The Time Traveller's Guide to Restoration Britain. The Jews did return under Cromwell's time, though the reasons haven't been specified.
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/986349451710226432/photo/1
I’m doing a thread based on the front page of business section of The Times.
https://twitter.com/fletcherr/status/986491013546962944?s=21
Unlimited and unprepared for immigration from Eastern Europe led to the government attempting to look in control of the issue by deporting others:
' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last ditch legal challenge to keep her in the UK failed on Wednesday night. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-26864479/student-yashika-bageerathi-is-deported-to-mauritius
' A French court has rejected an appeal for residency by the family of a Roma schoolgirl whose deportation from France last year sparked an outcry.
A court in the eastern city of Besancon upheld the October expulsion of 15-year-old Leonarda Dibrani, her parents and six siblings to Kosovo.
"My future came to an end today," said Leonarda, who is living in Mitrovica.
Leonarda's deportation triggered mass student protests after she was forcibly removed from her school bus. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25936784
The thing which I'd like to know is how did the Treasury get everything so wrong. Was it:
a) The Treasury is crap
b) The Treasury is biased
c) The Treasury was lent on by Osborne to produce the required propaganda
A question that the Treasury Select Committee is determined not to ask.
So thanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab
Perhaps we have one coming, we haven't had one yet.