The Windrush issue will be soon forgotten (except amongst the Guardian-reading classes, of course) for the very simple reason that people will see it for what it is: a straightforward, old-fashioned Home Office cock-up, and one which luckily can be very rapidly fixed....
Perhaps.
But it, and the fairly scandalous state of immigration appeals, are the result of May's direct lead. Her illiberality on immigration and lack of concern for the results of uncompromising policies is fairly clear, as is demonstrated by the link I posted earlier this morning:
I think most taxpayers would support the idea that they shouldn't be paying for the education of children who shouldn't be here in the first place, let alone prioritising them.
The root cause of the present scandal is that nothing much has been done over decades to distinguish between those entitled to be here and those not entitled.
May and Corbyn will have gone. It will be Johnson versus Thornberry.
The context will be a BINO Brexit combined with a cyclical recession and the finger of blame. Windrush and antisemitism will not feature at all.
Labour majority.
How do we end up with Corbyn gone?
Short of illness, we don't.
Or voluntarily with Emily his anointed successor carrying on his policies for the many not tyhe few.
But my main point wasn't who will be leaders but that the context will be a BINO Brexit combined with a cyclical recession and the finger of blame. Windrush and antisemitism will not feature at all.
He won't go voluntarily.
1. He's being told that he's the best thing since Christ (possibly since before Christ as JC1 was, you know, J*wish). Why would he stand down amid adulation without the job even being begun, never mind finished?
2. When he does hand over, I'd expect he'd prefer a true believer. Thornberry isn't out of Corbyn's Bennite left. He might tolerate handing over to her with no better option; he won't if one option is staying on.
3. He didn't quit in 2016 when everything was really going wrong; why should we expect him to go when he's turned things round - and it was to a large extent him?
4. He doesn't head a monarchy. Even if he wanted to hand over to Thornberry, there'd be an election and the outcome wouldn't be certain. Is it worth risking the reforms for a marginal potential benefit and possibly (from the point of view of the left) irretrievable cost?
You can't be sure about that. Betfair has it as a 60% probability that he will exit in 2020 or later i.e. 40% that he will exit before 2020.
Taking your points:
1. It's not all adulation. He's taking a lot of stick as you can see. 2. You don't know what understanding Corbyn has with Thornberry. 3. That's a good point. But he'll have taken another six years of unrelenting attack since 2026. The polls might also show Thornberry with a much better chance. 4. If he blessed Thornberry as his successor, members would vote for her.
EDIT I have a bet at 1.9 that he will exit in 2020 or later. That's my only bet on him.
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
F
E
I
A good Tory Leader would have ensured someone as awful as Corbyn polled sub 30%
No I don't think that's a remotely accurate analysis. Corbyn, at the time and still to an extent, tapped into a massively anti-Blairite agenda that was itching to get revenge for the arrogance of that dominion. Iraq in particular incensed many on the left.
So, regardless of what you may now think of Corbyn, at the time he was hugely popular as a protest politician breaking the cosy Handy Mandy (;) consensus on the soft left.
I think it's actually quite remarkable with hindsight that the Tories didn't lose. Your beloved George would have got taken to the cleaners. It was TM's grammar school non-Notting Hill background that almost certainly saved her bacon.
Why did Iraq not incense anyone on the Left in 2005 or did they just hold their noses?
A lot of them voted LD.
LDs gained 11 seats.
Yes....they won over many on the left upset by Iraq. That’s why they did so well at that GE.
I've always wondered how much better the Lib Dems could've done if there'd been TV debates in 2005. Charlie Kennedy was a much better performer than Clegg IMO, and could've made more of that opportunity than Clegg did, possibly enough to push up to 100 seats.
@RCS1000 is not far off when he calls NZ isolated. It is. It has the land area the size of the UK, with a population smaller than Scotland.
Sounds wonderful. I'd encourage everyone to go personally, don't want the fields behind my house getting bricked over any time soon.
My wife is from New Zealand, i went once for a month, would never go back. I dont know why but i just didn't like it. My wife hates it there, which is why she left. In fact her whole family have left and live in Australia, Singapore and America.
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
F
E
I
A good Tory Leader would have ensured someone as awful as Corbyn polled sub 30%
No I don't think that's a remotely accurate analysis. Corbyn, at the time and still to an extent, tapped into a massively anti-Blairite agenda that was itching to get revenge for the arrogance of that dominion. Iraq in particular incensed many on the left.
So, regardless of what you may now think of Corbyn, at the time he was hugely popular as a protest politician breaking the cosy Handy Mandy (;) consensus on the soft left.
I think it's actually quite remarkable with hindsight that the Tories didn't lose. Your beloved George would have got taken to the cleaners. It was TM's grammar school non-Notting Hill background that almost certainly saved her bacon.
Why did Iraq not incense anyone on the Left in 2005 or did they just hold their noses?
A lot of them voted LD.
LDs gained 11 seats.
Yes....they won over many on the left upset by Iraq. That’s why they did so well at that GE.
I should have said _only_ 11 seats. Hardly a seismic shift: 356/192/62
Neither has the character of a leader. Both have ended up in leadership positions. Neither party has a clear option.
Windrush and anti-Semitism are merely illustrations of their respective failings. The impressions they leave rather than the specific topics are what are going to leave the public so underwhelmed with both.
So perusing the Graun online front page I see that Windrush occupies a whole section (= four stories), and anti-semitism occupies zero sections (= zero stories).
Presumably the working behind this is that whereas the Windrush issue has tangibly affected people (hospital treatment foregone?), recipients of anti-semitic related abuse should just suck it up.
Presumably it's all about news values and not your or CCHQ's political bias. The Telegraph online also leads on Windrush and the Times on Korea and they can't all be Corbynites. It is a good test whenever someone complains that a media outlet is pro-Tory or pro-Labour: see what all the others are doing.
So we have record employmnet, very low unemployment, low infaltion rising wages and a booming economy, yet this Government is considered completely incompetent. Who would be a politician?
A lot of it is perception and messaging.
The government are absolutely terrible at "selling" this economic story (not helped by the fact the Chancellor looks more like the Chief Mourner at the funeral UK PLC while the Prime Minister doesn't "do" speaking to the public....)
Nobody is talking about the economy because it is so good - it's excellent in fact.
And that Labour would screw it up is a given. Their approach is that they would pay off their vested interests just enough such that the decline wouldn't be felt by anyone other than Jews and rich people.
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
F
E
I
A good Tory Leader would have ensured someone as awful as Corbyn polled sub 30%
No I don't think that's a remotely accurate analysis. Corbyn, at the time and still to an extent, tapped into a massively anti-Blairite agenda that was itching to get revenge for the arrogance of that dominion. Iraq in particular incensed many on the left.
So, regardless of what you may now think of Corbyn, at the time he was hugely popular as a protest politician breaking the cosy Handy Mandy (;) consensus on the soft left.
I think it's actually quite remarkable with hindsight that the Tories didn't lose. Your beloved George would have got taken to the cleaners. It was TM's grammar school non-Notting Hill background that almost certainly saved her bacon.
Why did Iraq not incense anyone on the Left in 2005 or did they just hold their noses?
A lot of them voted LD.
LDs gained 11 seats.
Yes....they won over many on the left upset by Iraq. That’s why they did so well at that GE.
I've always wondered how much better the Lib Dems could've done if there'd been TV debates in 2005. Charlie Kennedy was a much better performer than Clegg IMO, and could've made more of that opportunity than Clegg did, possibly enough to push up to 100 seats.
I remember being so shocked at the exit poll on 2010 - I really thought Cleggasm was real. I agree that Charlie Kennedy had a kind of natural charm that would have worked very well in the debates. Especially against post Iraq Blair and Michael Howard.
So we have record employmnet, very low unemployment, low infaltion rising wages and a booming economy, yet this Government is considered completely incompetent. Who would be a politician?
A lot of it is perception and messaging.
The government are absolutely terrible at "selling" this economic story (not helped by the fact the Chancellor looks more like the Chief Mourner at the funeral UK PLC while the Prime Minister doesn't "do" speaking to the public....)
The reason is simple.
We have seen many years of wage repression, and the government’s key (only) policy is economically damaging.
Many of the “fundamentals” are good: low inflation, high employment. Many are bad: trade deficit, low investment, low savings, high house prices.
There’s no coherent policy to assess any of those bads.
The Windrush issue will be soon forgotten (except amongst the Guardian-reading classes, of course) for the very simple reason that people will see it for what it is: a straightforward, old-fashioned Home Office cock-up, and one which luckily can be very rapidly fixed.
It is true that it has probably kiboshed what remained of Amber Rudd's chances to become next leader, but mainly because it will be used as an excuse by those who think she's insufficiently zealous on Brexit. It's ironic, because she's actually handled it very well and very decisively.
Jeremy Corbyn's problem with anti-semitism is a little different in that it will roll on, given that he clearly hasn't got the slightest interest in doing anything about it. Still, in electoral terms it's minor in the overall scheme of things, except inasmuch as it won't be forgotten by Jewish voters. Where it might have an effect is within the PLP: those speeches in the debate yesterday by Labour MPs were absolutely astonishing; I can't recall a case where MPs have been so heartfelt in laying in to their own leadership.
Is it just a cock up though? We seem to be useless at deporting foreign criminals and terrorists, but go turbo charged on the Windrush generation.
Tis ever so!
It is easier to target long settled people for deportation than track down elusive and covert car wash people, just as it is easier to do tax inspections on Doctors than it is on cash in hand tradesmen. The people are more lawabiding, and easier to track. When numbers for targets are the priority, pick on the soft targets.
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
F
E
I
A good Tory Leader would have ensured someone as awful as Corbyn polled sub 30%
No I don't think that's a remotely accurate analysis. Corbyn, at the time and still to an extent, tapped into a massively anti-Blairite agenda that was itching to get revenge for the arrogance of that dominion. Iraq in particular incensed many on the left.
So, regardless of what you may now think of Corbyn, at the time he was hugely popular as a protest politician breaking the cosy Handy Mandy (;) consensus on the soft left.
I think it's actually quite remarkable with hindsight that the Tories didn't lose. Your beloved George would have got taken to the cleaners. It was TM's grammar school non-Notting Hill background that almost certainly saved her bacon.
Why did Iraq not incense anyone on the Left in 2005 or did they just hold their noses?
A lot of them voted LD.
LDs gained 11 seats.
Yes....they won over many on the left upset by Iraq. That’s why they did so well at that GE.
I should have said _only_ 11 seats. Hardly a seismic shift: 356/192/62
Many people can vote for a political party and it not be reflected by FPTP. Major won more votes than Blair in 1997, yet it was Blair that got the massive majority for example.
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
F
E
I
A good Tory Leader would have ensured someone as awful as Corbyn polled sub 30%
No I don't think that's a remotely accurate analysis. Corbyn, at the time and still to an extent, tapped into a massively anti-Blairite agenda that was itching to get revenge for the arrogance of that dominion. Iraq in particular incensed many on the left.
So, regardless of what you may now think of Corbyn, at the time he was hugely popular as a protest politician breaking the cosy Handy Mandy (;) consensus on the soft left.
I think it's actually quite remarkable with hindsight that the Tories didn't lose. Your beloved George would have got taken to the cleaners. It was TM's grammar school non-Notting Hill background that almost certainly saved her bacon.
Why did Iraq not incense anyone on the Left in 2005 or did they just hold their noses?
A lot of them voted LD.
LDs gained 11 seats.
Yes....they won over many on the left upset by Iraq. That’s why they did so well at that GE.
I've always wondered how much better the Lib Dems could've done if there'd been TV debates in 2005. Charlie Kennedy was a much better performer than Clegg IMO, and could've made more of that opportunity than Clegg did, possibly enough to push up to 100 seats.
I remember being so shocked at the exit poll on 2010 - I really thought Cleggasm was real. I agree that Charlie Kennedy had a kind of natural charm that would have worked very well in the debates. Especially against post Iraq Blair and Michael Howard.
It is the polls which are key for May. Thatcher and IDS were only toppled when trailing in the polls and in Thatcher's case when polling not only showed her trailing Kinnock but Major and Heseltine beating Kinnock, that is not the case for May. The Tories tie Labour in most polls and no polling suggests Boris, Hunt, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Rudd etc would do any better against Corbyn than May and in some cases they poll worse
Nah. Everyone knows Theresa May can blow 25% leads.
Theresa May got 42%, the highest Tory voteshare since Thatcher, it was not so much she lost voteshare over the campaign but Corbyn gained it from minor parties
Shortly after the election was called, the Tories were consistently scoring in the high-40s, and hit 50% in one. Corbyn did indeed take share from the LDs and UKIP (though we have to assume that Con took share from UKIP too), so there must have been a direct swing from Con to Lab between late April and early June. Indeed, I know there was: people who'd given support in canvassing early on had defected by the time it came to knocking-up.
What was the main reason for the Con > Lab swing David?
Dementia tax? Theresa's appalling personality on show? Jezza surprising people? Jessa offering milk and honey without anyone except "the rich" having to pay for it?
A mix of all of the above. A stupid manifesto almost designed to hit every Tory demographic, written in such a way that you couldn't sell the policies without getting into the detail, when Corbyn was selling sunshine (or possibly, moonshine) to those who just wanted bright primary colours. Also, May's personal defensive, timid campaign, hiding from the public, opponents and media - also in contrast to Corbyn. Also, a failure to tackle Corbyn effectively - too much time spent in the 1980s and not enough taking down their actual policies. Also, dreadful central planning, with insufficient news interest, which resulted in losing even more control of the media narrative.
Since Khan's been mayor we've seen a decrease in stop-and-search, and an increase in stop-and-stab. Reportedly, police numbers have declined by 700 in London during this period, which could be more than offset by the 900 officers dedicated to 'hate crimes'.
So we have record employmnet, very low unemployment, low infaltion rising wages and a booming economy, yet this Government is considered completely incompetent. Who would be a politician?
A lot of it is perception and messaging.
The government are absolutely terrible at "selling" this economic story (not helped by the fact the Chancellor looks more like the Chief Mourner at the funeral UK PLC while the Prime Minister doesn't "do" speaking to the public....)
The government has a clear lead on the economy. It's probably helping to underpin their poll ratings.
Since I know how keen PBers are to arbitrate on this matter, could a judgment be made as to whether the 9% of voters who think the Windrush children should be kicked out are racists & xenophobes?
Well, it's a pleasant advance on the 52% xenophobic liar count which we (very infrequently and intermittently) hear about on here. As always, knock off 4% for the "Have you ever been decapitated?" crowd and that leaves 5%, which is probably about the UKIP and BNP membership combined, and we knew about them anyway. Rather an uplifting statistic, then.
Has anyone actually said all 52% of Leavers were xenophobic liars? In any case that 5% would certainly qualify for getting Leave over the line.
Of course that poll doesn't cover the 'keep our children of Empire but kick out the benefit stealing gypsies' quota amongst leavers. That comes from all parts of the political spectrum.
I don’t see how Windrush is going to ‘blow over soon’. As long there continue to be more stories or unjust treatment it will continue to make headlines, not in the least because it hasn’t just outraged ‘The Guardian Reading classes’ but even the likes of The Sun and the Daily Mail. People losing their jobs, access to healthcare and being wrongly deported is hardly an obscure Westminster Village issue.
Because it's easy to fix, and will be rapidly fixed.
In general, voters give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt over immigration, in the same way they give Labour the benefit of the doubt over the NHS.
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
F
E
I
A good Tory Leader would have ensured someone as awful as Corbyn polled sub 30%
No I don't think that's a remotely accurate analysis. Corbyn, at the time and still to an extent, tapped into a massively anti-Blairite agenda that was itching to get revenge for the arrogance of that dominion. Iraq in particular incensed many on the left.
So, regardless of what you may now think of Corbyn, at the time he was hugely popular as a protest politician breaking the cosy Handy Mandy (;) consensus on the soft left.
I think it's actually quite remarkable with hindsight that the Tories didn't lose. Your beloved George would have got taken to the cleaners. It was TM's grammar school non-Notting Hill background that almost certainly saved her bacon.
Why did Iraq not incense anyone on the Left in 2005 or did they just hold their noses?
A lot of them voted LD.
LDs gained 11 seats.
Yes....they won over many on the left upset by Iraq. That’s why they did so well at that GE.
I should have said _only_ 11 seats. Hardly a seismic shift: 356/192/62
Many people can vote for a political party and it not be reflected by FPTP. Major won more votes than Blair in 1997, yet it was Blair that got the massive majority for example.
Indeed and 5% more people voted for Lab in 2005 than had done in 2001 (and 4% more for LD, that said).
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
F
E
I
A good Tory Leader would have ensured someone as awful as Corbyn polled sub 30%
No I don't think that's a remotely accurate analysis. Corbyn, at the time and still to an extent, tapped into a massively anti-Blairite agenda that was itching to get revenge for the arrogance of that dominion. Iraq in particular incensed many on the left.
So, regardless of what you may now think of Corbyn, at the time he was hugely popular as a protest politician breaking the cosy Handy Mandy (;) consensus on the soft left.
I think it's actually quite remarkable with hindsight that the Tories didn't lose. Your beloved George would have got taken to the cleaners. It was TM's grammar school non-Notting Hill background that almost certainly saved her bacon.
Why did Iraq not incense anyone on the Left in 2005 or did they just hold their noses?
A lot of them voted LD.
LDs gained 11 seats.
Yes....they won over many on the left upset by Iraq. That’s why they did so well at that GE.
I should have said _only_ 11 seats. Hardly a seismic shift: 356/192/62
Many people can vote for a political party and it not be reflected by FPTP. Major won more votes than Blair in 1997, yet it was Blair that got the massive majority for example.
Indeed and 5% more people voted for Lab in 2005 than had done in 2001 (and 4% more for LD, that said).
That doesn’t really dispute that many on the left voted LD because of Iraq though.
Or voluntarily with Emily his anointed successor carrying on his policies for the many not tyhe few.
But my main point wasn't who will be leaders but that the context will be a BINO Brexit combined with a cyclical recession and the finger of blame. Windrush and antisemitism will not feature at all.
He won't go voluntarily.
1. He's being told that he's the best thing since Christ (possibly since before Christ as JC1 was, you know, J*wish). Why would he stand down amid adulation without the job even being begun, never mind finished?
2. When he does hand over, I'd expect he'd prefer a true believer. Thornberry isn't out of Corbyn's Bennite left. He might tolerate handing over to her with no better option; he won't if one option is staying on.
3. He didn't quit in 2016 when everything was really going wrong; why should we expect him to go when he's turned things round - and it was to a large extent him?
4. He doesn't head a monarchy. Even if he wanted to hand over to Thornberry, there'd be an election and the outcome wouldn't be certain. Is it worth risking the reforms for a marginal potential benefit and possibly (from the point of view of the left) irretrievable cost?
You can't be sure about that. Betfair has it as a 60% probability that he will exit in 2020 or later i.e. 40% that he will exit before 2020.
Taking your points:
1. It's not all adulation. He's taking a lot of stick as you can see. 2. You don't know what understanding Corbyn has with Thornberry. 3. That's a good point. But he'll have taken another six years of unrelenting attack since 2016. The polls might also show Thornberry with a much better chance. 4. If he blessed Thornberry as his successor, members would vote for her.
EDIT I have a bet at 1.9 that he will exit in 2020 or later. That's my only bet on him.
If betfair only gives him a 60% chance of making it to the end of 2019, I'd say that was an excellent buying opportunity (bar the small returns - but it's still value).
Ref your comments:
1. He is taking stick, but not as much as 2016-17. Whatever else happens now, his supporters will always be able to answer "but it'll come right at the election, like last time". It must do his self-confidence some good too to have had that experience before and come through it so strongly.
2. True, but then neither does anyone else. FWIW, i think he'd be mad to make any kind of understanding of that kind with anyone.
3. True - but it doesn't seem to be grinding him down yet. And the likes of macDonnell and Milne will be there to support him if it does.
4. I tend to agree with that but all the same, elections are inherently unpredictable as he himself has proven at least twice.
It is the polls which are key for May. Thatcher and IDS were only toppled when trailing in the polls and in Thatcher's case when polling not only showed her trailing Kinnock but Major and Heseltine beating Kinnock, that is not the case for May. The Tories tie Labour in most polls and no polling suggests Boris, Hunt, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Rudd etc would do any better against Corbyn than May and in some cases they poll worse
Nah. Everyone knows Theresa May can blow 25% leads.
Theresa May got 42%, the highest Tory voteshare since Thatcher, it was not so much she lost voteshare over the campaign but Corbyn gained it from minor parties
Shortly after the election was called, the Tories were consistently scoring in the high-40s, and hit 50% in one. Corbyn did indeed take share from the LDs and UKIP (though we have to assume that Con took share from UKIP too), so there must have been a direct swing from Con to Lab between late April and early June. Indeed, I know there was: people who'd given support in canvassing early on had defected by the time it came to knocking-up.
What was the main reason for the Con > Lab swing David?
Dementia tax? Theresa's appalling personality on show? Jezza surprising people? Jessa offering milk and honey without anyone except "the rich" having to pay for it?
A mix of all of the above. A stupid manifesto almost designed to hit every Tory demographic, written in such a way that you couldn't sell the policies without getting into the detail, when Corbyn was selling sunshine (or possibly, moonshine) to those who just wanted bright primary colours. Also, May's personal defensive, timid campaign, hiding from the public, opponents and media - also in contrast to Corbyn. Also, a failure to tackle Corbyn effectively - too much time spent in the 1980s and not enough taking down their actual policies. Also, dreadful central planning, with insufficient news interest, which resulted in losing even more control of the media narrative.
So basally if it could go wrong (for Con) it did during Election 2017?
I don't think that Conservative supporters on here have appreciated just how powerfully the Windrush affair is reinforcing all the stereotypes younger voters have about them being appalling old heartless racists. At some point the Conservatives are going to want to start making inroads into those voters. That opportunity, already not exactly glistening after Brexit, has probably been further deferred as a consequence.
Since I know how keen PBers are to arbitrate on this matter, could a judgment be made as to whether the 9% of voters who think the Windrush children should be kicked out are racists & xenophobes?
Well, it's a pleasant advance on the 52% xenophobic liar count which we (very infrequently and intermittently) hear about on here. As always, knock off 4% for the "Have you ever been decapitated?" crowd and that leaves 5%, which is probably about the UKIP and BNP membership combined, and we knew about them anyway. Rather an uplifting statistic, then.
Has anyone actually said all 52% of Leavers were xenophobic liars? In any case that 5% would certainly qualify for getting Leave over the line.
Of course that poll doesn't cover the 'keep our children of Empire but kick out the benefit stealing gypsies' quota amongst leavers. That comes from all parts of the political spectrum.
The charge is never clear: those of the 52% who weren't xenophobic liars were "standing behind" xenophobic liars, or some such weaselly metaphor. I like to think that all bar about 5% max of them thought and think Farage is a complete arse, and voted on other grounds.
Mr. Meeks, I haven't seen a single PBer from do anything but be aghast and utterly against the Government's moronic Windrush approach, which has (belatedly) led to a complete u-turn a long time after it should've happened. Nobody's defending the idiotic approach the Government has taken.
I don't think that Conservative supporters on here have appreciated just how powerfully the Windrush affair is reinforcing all the stereotypes younger voters have about them being appalling old heartless racists. At some point the Conservatives are going to want to start making inroads into those voters. That opportunity, already not exactly glistening after Brexit, has probably been further deferred as a consequence.
Look forward to the polling on how many voters particularly young voters even know or care what "Windrush" is.
The Windrush issue will be soon forgotten (except amongst the Guardian-reading classes, of course) for the very simple reason that people will see it for what it is: a straightforward, old-fashioned Home Office cock-up, and one which luckily can be very rapidly fixed....
Perhaps.
But it, and the fairly scandalous state of immigration appeals, are the result of May's direct lead. Her illiberality on immigration and lack of concern for the results of uncompromising policies is fairly clear, as is demonstrated by the link I posted earlier this morning:
I think most taxpayers would support the idea that they shouldn't be paying for the education of children who shouldn't be here in the first place, let alone prioritising them.
The root cause of the present scandal is that nothing much has been done over decades to distinguish between those entitled to be here and those not entitled.
It's interesting that you claim broad popular support for May's illiberality - at the same time as apparently absolving her from any responsibility for her policies.
Indeed and 5% more people voted for Lab in 2005 than had done in 2001 (and 4% more for LD, that said).
I think Labour received fewer votes in 2005 - drop of 5.5%.
And @The_Apocalypse - no indeed. It is difficult short of going to interview each voter their reasons. But I am suspect of such broad brush (talking to you also @HYUFD) assessments of why vote shares did what they did.
I don't think that Conservative supporters on here have appreciated just how powerfully the Windrush affair is reinforcing all the stereotypes younger voters have about them being appalling old heartless racists. At some point the Conservatives are going to want to start making inroads into those voters. That opportunity, already not exactly glistening after Brexit, has probably been further deferred as a consequence.
Agree strongly with that. It's manifestly unfair, confirms negative stereotypes of the Tories, and damages the branding of the Conservative Party as responsible and competent.
Astounding this took so long to surface, and astounding there was no-one at the home office with the political nous to see what was coming, and get it sorted.
I don't think that Conservative supporters on here have appreciated just how powerfully the Windrush affair is reinforcing all the stereotypes younger voters have about them being appalling old heartless racists. At some point the Conservatives are going to want to start making inroads into those voters. That opportunity, already not exactly glistening after Brexit, has probably been further deferred as a consequence.
Look forward to the polling on how many voters particularly young voters even know or care what "Windrush" is.
I'm afraid, sadly, no one really cares very much. It will have absolutely zero effect on any polling.
Mr. Meeks, I haven't seen a single PBer from do anything but be aghast and utterly against the Government's moronic Windrush approach, which has (belatedly) led to a complete u-turn a long time after it should've happened. Nobody's defending the idiotic approach the Government has taken.
When the policy and its implementation are transparently in accordance with ministerial direction, ministerial direction that was given by the current Prime Minister, the Conservatives are rightly going to be judged on this.
I don't think that Conservative supporters on here have appreciated just how powerfully the Windrush affair is reinforcing all the stereotypes younger voters have about them being appalling old heartless racists. At some point the Conservatives are going to want to start making inroads into those voters. That opportunity, already not exactly glistening after Brexit, has probably been further deferred as a consequence.
Look forward to the polling on how many voters particularly young voters even know or care what "Windrush" is.
I'm afraid, sadly, no one really cares very much. It will have absolutely zero effect on any polling.
I don't think that Conservative supporters on here have appreciated just how powerfully the Windrush affair is reinforcing all the stereotypes younger voters have about them being appalling old heartless racists. At some point the Conservatives are going to want to start making inroads into those voters. That opportunity, already not exactly glistening after Brexit, has probably been further deferred as a consequence.
Look forward to the polling on how many voters particularly young voters even know or care what "Windrush" is.
I'm afraid, sadly, no one really cares very much. It will have absolutely zero effect on any polling.
It might in the next two weeks but it's a transitory issue.
I don't think that Conservative supporters on here have appreciated just how powerfully the Windrush affair is reinforcing all the stereotypes younger voters have about them being appalling old heartless racists. At some point the Conservatives are going to want to start making inroads into those voters. That opportunity, already not exactly glistening after Brexit, has probably been further deferred as a consequence.
Agree strongly with that. It's manifestly unfair, confirms negative stereotypes of the Tories, and damages the branding of the Conservative Party as responsible and competent.
Astounding this took so long to surface, and astounding there was no-one at the home office with the political nous to see what was coming, and get it sorted.
I cannot understand how Amber Rudd did not see this scandal for what it is when she was first told about it. Labour calling for her to consider her position and I am not surprised.
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
F
E
I
A good Tory Leader would have ensured someone as awful as Corbyn polled sub 30%
No I don't think that's a remotely accurate analysis. Corbyn, at the time and still to an extent, tapped into a massively anti-Blairite agenda that was itching to get revenge for the arrogance of that dominion. Iraq in particular incensed many on the left.
So, regardless of what you may now think of Corbyn, at the time he was hugely popular as a protest politician breaking the cosy Handy Mandy (;) consensus on the soft left.
I think it's actually quite remarkable with hindsight that the Tories didn't lose. Your beloved George would have got taken to the cleaners. It was TM's grammar school non-Notting Hill background that almost certainly saved her bacon.
Why did Iraq not incense anyone on the Left in 2005 or did they just hold their noses?
A good question. I think many on the left, though probably not the Momentum types, went along with Blair's dodgy intel. It took another decade for the full facts to emerge after all.
I think, alongside that, it took time to force out the Blairites from the party. Until JC saved the party (that's sarcasm by the way, in case you're alarmed), we still had huge swathes of Labour under Blairite control. Slowly but surely they are being jemmied out of the party and the hard left is taking over. In all its thoroughly ugly glory.
Mr. Meeks, I look forward to the same standard being applied to the Labour Party.
When is Corbyn going to get around to doing something about anti-semitism?
Both main parties are far too comfortable with being unpleasant to minorities that they don't care about.
As I have pointed out on the odd occasion, this is the new normal in the post-referendum world, where Leave successfully harnessed xenophobia to win. It's something that all Leave advocates should acknowledge they have played a part in creating.
It's interesting that you claim broad popular support for May's illiberality - at the same time as apparently absolving her from any responsibility for her policies.
What on earth is illiberal about ensuring that taxpayers don't pay for those here illegally? Liberals used to believe in fairness and the rule of law, but maybe that's considered old-fashioned nowadays.
As for her policies, they are clearly correct in aim and principle. The Home Office have badly screwed up the implementation, but as I've pointed out, that goes back decades. In any case, as I've also pointed out, no-one from the 'Windrush generation' affected by these rules would have been able to get a new job after 2008 when Labour's 2006 Act came into force; am I supposed to blame Theresa May for that as well?
Mr. Meeks, I look forward to the same standard being applied to the Labour Party.
When is Corbyn going to get around to doing something about anti-semitism?
Both main parties are far too comfortable with being unpleasant to minorities that they don't care about.
As I have pointed out on the odd occasion, this is the new normal in the post-referendum world, where Leave successfully harnessed xenophobia to win. It's something that all Leave advocates should acknowledge they have played a part in creating.
If it were the new normal, the reaction of most Leave voters to the Windrush story would be "Send them back." That hasn't been their reaction.
Since Khan's been mayor we've seen a decrease in stop-and-search, and an increase in stop-and-stab. Reportedly, police numbers have declined by 700 in London during this period, which could be more than offset by the 900 officers dedicated to 'hate crimes'.
This appears to be wrong in multiple ways in a very concise form.
So get rid of officers working on hate crimes but more should be done to combat anti-semitism?
Who is responsible for police funding? If it's Khan's fault why are the police blaming the government? Why are police numbers nationally at a record low?
Mr. Meeks, I look forward to the same standard being applied to the Labour Party.
When is Corbyn going to get around to doing something about anti-semitism?
Both main parties are far too comfortable with being unpleasant to minorities that they don't care about.
As I have pointed out on the odd occasion, this is the new normal in the post-referendum world, where Leave successfully harnessed xenophobia to win. It's something that all Leave advocates should acknowledge they have played a part in creating.
If it were the new normal, the reaction of most Leave voters to the Windrush story would be "Send them back." That hasn't been their reaction.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind". If it wasn't, there would have been resignations by now. There is no real pressure on the government despite the fact that huge hardship and shocking administration is the direct responsibility of ministerial decisions.
And you miss the point. You can't pick and mix your xenophobia, whip it up when it suits you (as it suited you two years ago) then profess to be shocked at the consequences.
Mr. rkrkrk, Khan is responsible for police policy in London. Police numbers were also declining under Boris. If Khan can't even be as competent as Boris, that doesn't speak well of him.
We need only look at the Met's idiotic behaviour over the dead thief to see how resources can be squandered needlessly in a way contrary to the interests and desires of victims of crime (the pensioner in this case) and the innocent.
Khan has only called for a rise in stop-and-search very recently, having previously opposed it.
Anti-semitism in the Labour Party is not a matter solely for the police but requires action and support from the Labour leadership.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind". If it wasn't, there would have been resignations by now. There is no real pressure on the government despite the fact that huge hardship and shocking administration is the direct responsibility of ministerial decisions.
And you miss the point. You can't pick and mix your xenophobia, whip it up when it suits you (as it suited you two years ago) then profess to be shocked at the consequences.
Alastair, was it xenophobia when my English mother lost her British nationality in 1942, and therefore had to report to the police weekly as an alien, because she had married my father?
It will make BT Sports doing the Ashes look like the pinnacle of sports coverage.
TalkSPORT had the rights for some overseas tours some time ago. I think South Africa in 99-00 and 04-05, and the Windies in 04. I seem to remember it being quite good.
I’d also point out that for the 02-03 Ashes, the BBC just used the host radio coverage with Agnew the English representative.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind". If it wasn't, there would have been resignations by now. There is no real pressure on the government despite the fact that huge hardship and shocking administration is the direct responsibility of ministerial decisions.
And you miss the point. You can't pick and mix your xenophobia, whip it up when it suits you (as it suited you two years ago) then profess to be shocked at the consequences.
In some ways I feel encouraged by the public reaction to this Windrush scandal. Not so long ago - the attitude of many would have been to blame black people for losing records/not getting a passport/whatever else they should have done. That doesn't seem to be a significant view at all. I suspect had the main group disadvantaged been Muslim we would not have seen the same reaction from the popular press.
Corbyn is not really anti Semitic, though some of his supporters maybe and May did not intemtionally try and stop Windrush migrants staying in the country, though she should perhaps have paid closer attention to ensuring the records and legal exemptions were kept that proved that.
However politically in brute terms the Jewish vote is solidly Tory and the Afro-Caribbean vote solidly Labour so I doubt it will impact much on the next general election
May will want to fix Windrush. Corbyn has no interest in fixing anti-semitism. That’s the difference
May and Corbyn will have gone. It will be Johnson versus Thornberry.
The context will be a BINO Brexit combined with a cyclical recession and the finger of blame. Windrush and antisemitism will not feature at all.
Labour majority.
How do we end up with Corbyn gone?
Short of illness, we don't.
Or voluntarily with Emily his anointed successor carrying on his policies for the many not tyhe few.
But my main point wasn't who will be leaders but that the context will be a BINO Brexit combined with a cyclical recession and the finger of blame. Windrush and antisemitism will not feature at all.
He won't go voluntarily.
1. He's being told that he's the best thing since Christ (possibly since before Christ as JC1 was, you know, J*wish). Why would he stand down amid adulation without the job even being begun, never mind finished?
2. When he does hand over, I'd expect he'd prefer a true believer. Thornberry isn't out of Corbyn's Bennite left. He might tolerate handing over to her with no better option; he won't if one option is staying on.
3. He didn't quit in 2016 when everything was really going wrong; why should we expect him to go when he's turned things round - and it was to a large extent him?
4. He doesn't head a monarchy. Even if he wanted to hand over to Thornberry, there'd be an election and the outcome wouldn't be certain. Is it worth risking the reforms for a marginal potential benefit and possibly (from the point of view of the left) irretrievable cost?
I agree.
We’re all stuck with him until the Tories beat him at the next election.
Unless the Tories stick with May or choose Johnson as her repacement. Then we’ll be stuck with Corbyn as PM!
The polling evidence does not support that, Survation last year had both Hammond and Rudd getting a lower Tory voteshare than May and Boris v Corbyn Labour and Davis getting the same Tory voteshare as May
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind".
Bollocks.
So you're calling for the responsible minister's resignation?
Potentially, depending on the results of the internal inquiries. I concur with David Lammy that the treatment of the Windrush generation is a source of national shame. I also concur with Amber Rudd that the Home Office have treated many individuals in a Kafkaesque and terrible manner.
I don't concur with the many commentators who seem to think that we should abandon the perfectly sensible policy of ensuring the British state only supports those who are entitled to it, nor do I concur with the subset of those commentators who are implicitly calling for uncontrolled immigration.
Astounding this took so long to surface, and astounding there was no-one at the home office with the political nous to see what was coming, and get it sorted.
Its the home office, this is business as usual. That no one has ever bothered to fix the problem (the home office) is staggering - not counting Blair's split which should have helped but instead concentrated the problems.
It will make BT Sports doing the Ashes look like the pinnacle of sports coverage.
TalkSPORT had the rights for some overseas tours some time ago. I think South Africa in 99-00 and 04-05, and the Windies in 04. I seem to remember it being quite good.
I’d also point out that for the 02-03 Ashes, the BBC just used the host radio coverage with Agnew the English representative.
TalkSport are apparently going to use Darren Gough and Steve Harmison...I think I will give it a miss thanks.
German police attribute more than 90% of cases nationwide to far-right offenders. But Jewish activists and victim representatives say the data is misleading because police automatically label any incident where the perpetrators aren’t known as coming from the far right.
Germany has some very odd approaches to policing / law enforcement. A bit like their ridiculous limbo dancing not to name / provide details of the background of terrorist suspects.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind". If it wasn't, there would have been resignations by now. There is no real pressure on the government despite the fact that huge hardship and shocking administration is the direct responsibility of ministerial decisions.
And you miss the point. You can't pick and mix your xenophobia, whip it up when it suits you (as it suited you two years ago) then profess to be shocked at the consequences.
Alastair, was it xenophobia when my English mother lost her British nationality in 1942, and therefore had to report to the police weekly as an alien, because she had married my father?
Given your surname, the story of how your parents met (Didn't realise it was during the war) sounds like a fascinating story to be told.
It is the polls which are key for May. Thatcher and IDS were only toppled when trailing in the polls and in Thatcher's case when polling not only showed her trailing Kinnock but Major and Heseltine beating Kinnock, that is not the case for May. The Tories tie Labour in most polls and no polling suggests Boris, Hunt, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Rudd etc would do any better against Corbyn than May and in some cases they poll worse
Nah. Everyone knows Theresa May can blow 25% leads.
Theresa May got 42%, the highest Tory voteshare since Thatcher, it was not so much she lost voteshare over the campaign but Corbyn gained it from minor parties
Shortly after the election was called, the Tories were consistently scoring in the high-40s, and hit 50% in one. Corbyn did indeed take share from the LDs and UKIP (though we have to assume that Con took share from UKIP too), so there must have been a direct swing from Con to Lab between late April and early June. Indeed, I know there was: people who'd given support in canvassing early on had defected by the time it came to knocking-up.
What was the main reason for the Con > Lab swing David?
Dementia tax? Theresa's appalling personality on show? Jezza surprising people? Jessa offering milk and honey without anyone except "the rich" having to pay for it?
A mix of all of the above. A stupid manifesto almost designed to hit every Tory demographic, written in such a way that you couldn't sell the policies without getting into the detail, when Corbyn was selling sunshine (or possibly, moonshine) to those who just wanted bright primary colours. Also, May's personal defensive, timid campaign, hiding from the public, opponents and media - also in contrast to Corbyn. Also, a failure to tackle Corbyn effectively - too much time spent in the 1980s and not enough taking down their actual policies. Also, dreadful central planning, with insufficient news interest, which resulted in losing even more control of the media narrative.
So basally if it could go wrong (for Con) it did during Election 2017?
Well, no-one was found in a compromising position with a pig but yes, there've been better campaigns.
Mr. Meeks, I look forward to the same standard being applied to the Labour Party.
When is Corbyn going to get around to doing something about anti-semitism?
Both main parties are far too comfortable with being unpleasant to minorities that they don't care about.
As I have pointed out on the odd occasion, this is the new normal in the post-referendum world, where Leave successfully harnessed xenophobia to win. It's something that all Leave advocates should acknowledge they have played a part in creating.
If it were the new normal, the reaction of most Leave voters to the Windrush story would be "Send them back." That hasn't been their reaction.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind". If it wasn't, there would have been resignations by now. There is no real pressure on the government despite the fact that huge hardship and shocking administration is the direct responsibility of ministerial decisions.
And you miss the point. You can't pick and mix your xenophobia, whip it up when it suits you (as it suited you two years ago) then profess to be shocked at the consequences.
We have a binary choice. May or Corbyn; Leave or Remain. I'm satisfied with the choice I made in both cases. That doesn't mean that I can't think that an injustice has been done in this particular case.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind". If it wasn't, there would have been resignations by now. There is no real pressure on the government despite the fact that huge hardship and shocking administration is the direct responsibility of ministerial decisions.
And you miss the point. You can't pick and mix your xenophobia, whip it up when it suits you (as it suited you two years ago) then profess to be shocked at the consequences.
Alastair, was it xenophobia when my English mother lost her British nationality in 1942, and therefore had to report to the police weekly as an alien, because she had married my father?
Given your surname, the story of how your parents met (Didn't realise it was during the war) sounds like a fascinating story to be told.
My father was a student at Birmingham University, and met my mother at a dance. The relationship was not exactly encouraged by my mother's very Catholic family (!), but much to my grandmother's horror, they got married. My father then had to go back to Iran, so my mother didn't see him for a couple of years, then suddenly he reappeared having wangled a job with the BBC Listening Service.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind".
Bollocks.
Agree completely - just nonsense and is unworthy of Alastair
There is no real pressure on the Government for ministerial resignations. Given that there has been inhuman treatment of lawful British residents as a direct result of ministerial policy and in accordance with ministerial rhetoric, there's no real sense that Conservatives are doing anything other than expressing regret for what's happened.
To those not signed up to the Conservative mantra, it looks more like an Augean Stables.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind".
Bollocks.
Agree completely - just nonsense and is unworthy of Alastair
There is no real pressure on the Government for ministerial resignations. Given that there has been inhuman treatment of lawful British residents as a direct result of ministerial policy and in accordance with ministerial rhetoric, there's no real sense that Conservatives are doing anything other than expressing regret for what's happened.
To those not signed up to the Conservative mantra, it looks more like an Augean Stables.
That's nonsense, the Conservatives, and especially the government, are doing plenty about it, namely fixing the problem. I don't see why anyone should resign over a problem which they didn't know about.
Have Andrew Adonis and Moderate Meeks ever been seen in the same room together?
I strongly disagree with Lord Adonis. The bed has been made and has to be laid in.
Fundamentally, he's an optimist - he thinks that the situation is retrievable - while I'm a pessimist - the disaster is now unavoidable and has to be endured.
The reaction of most Leave voters has fundamentally been "how sad, oh well, never mind".
Bollocks.
Agree completely - just nonsense and is unworthy of Alastair
There is no real pressure on the Government for ministerial resignations. Given that there has been inhuman treatment of lawful British residents as a direct result of ministerial policy and in accordance with ministerial rhetoric, there's no real sense that Conservatives are doing anything other than expressing regret for what's happened.
To those not signed up to the Conservative mantra, it looks more like an Augean Stables.
That's nonsense, the Conservatives, and especially the government, are doing plenty about it, namely fixing the problem. I don't see why anyone should resign over a problem which they didn't know about.
This is derived from the lead given from the top, in accordance with a policy that the relevant minister (one Theresa May) was entirely happy with and entirely happy to back up rhetorically. Trying to claim it's some kind of low level bureaucratic bungle just won't wash.
She is most unlikely to be leading the Tories at the next election.
From Red Box
Even those who know her well insist they do not know what her plans are. "Let's be honest, she is not a big sharer," says one person who has worked closely with the PM. It is possible that she hasn't decided. It's certainly true that her closest aides want to keep open the possibility of fighting another election.
Tory MPs have other ideas: "We are putting up with it now, but if there is any sign of trying to 'go on and on' after next year, there will be insurrection," one MP only elected last year said.
And
To say the last year has been a bit bumpy is the sort of understatement the prime minister would enjoy. Each time May has looked like she has got on to the front foot – seeing off a leadership challenge, slapping down rivals, securing a transition deal, ordering successful airstrikes in Syria – something happens to trip her up – handling of the Grenfell Tower fire, the cough, the reshuffle and now Windrush.
Each triggers passionate defence from Team May in No10, and not all of it was her fault, but if sometimes you make your own luck, you can also lose it. "Give them some credit," one senior minister tells me. "Just when you think things are going well, they will find whole new, imaginative ways to f*** it up."
Well let's be very clear about this. Almost everyone has got TM completely and utterly wrong. At least Mike Smithson has had the integrity to admit it, unlike you TSE who still bleats the GO line from the increasingly isolated margins of history.
Unfortunately there's an unpleasant rump of Tories who don't like to be led by a woman. We had the same nonsense with some grandees preferring the manifestly unsuitable Heath over Maggie. TM has many of the resilient qualities of Maggie who, let it be remembered, was in deep deep deep doggy-do up until when the Argentinians gifted her a way out.
Theresa has proved remarkably strong and I fully expect her to lead the Conservatives into the next election, which I'm 90%+ certain she will win convincingly.
Dream on brother!
The Tories are staid and old - even some of the long standing big Tory posters on here have implied as much.
I don't agree that the Tories are staid and old any more or less than Labour. But in both cases their leaderships and cabinets are - with a few honourable exceptions- inept second raters who would struggle with a junior ministerial position let alone high office.
We will see no improvement in our politics until the majority of these people are removed and replaced in both government and opposition by people who not only have vision but the ability to actually get stuff done without perpetual cockups.
It's like Corbyn is wearing a pair of those huge fairground/party boxing gloves whereby nothing is felt when a "blow" is landed because it is not landed.
Comments
The root cause of the present scandal is that nothing much has been done over decades to distinguish between those entitled to be here and those not entitled.
Taking your points:
1. It's not all adulation. He's taking a lot of stick as you can see.
2. You don't know what understanding Corbyn has with Thornberry.
3. That's a good point. But he'll have taken another six years of unrelenting attack since 2026. The polls might also show Thornberry with a much better chance.
4. If he blessed Thornberry as his successor, members would vote for her.
EDIT I have a bet at 1.9 that he will exit in 2020 or later. That's my only bet on him.
Windrush and anti-Semitism are merely illustrations of their respective failings. The impressions they leave rather than the specific topics are what are going to leave the public so underwhelmed with both.
Lot of protesting, there.
And that Labour would screw it up is a given. Their approach is that they would pay off their vested interests just enough such that the decline wouldn't be felt by anyone other than Jews and rich people.
We have seen many years of wage repression, and the government’s key (only) policy is economically damaging.
Many of the “fundamentals” are good: low inflation, high employment. Many are bad: trade deficit, low investment, low savings, high house prices.
There’s no coherent policy to assess any of those bads.
This is too hard a message to triangulate.
It is easier to target long settled people for deportation than track down elusive and covert car wash people, just as it is easier to do tax inspections on Doctors than it is on cash in hand tradesmen. The people are more lawabiding, and easier to track. When numbers for targets are the priority, pick on the soft targets.
Since Khan's been mayor we've seen a decrease in stop-and-search, and an increase in stop-and-stab. Reportedly, police numbers have declined by 700 in London during this period, which could be more than offset by the 900 officers dedicated to 'hate crimes'.
Of course that poll doesn't cover the 'keep our children of Empire but kick out the benefit stealing gypsies' quota amongst leavers. That comes from all parts of the political spectrum.
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/986510990639591426
Taking your points:
1. It's not all adulation. He's taking a lot of stick as you can see.
2. You don't know what understanding Corbyn has with Thornberry.
3. That's a good point. But he'll have taken another six years of unrelenting attack since 2016. The polls might also show Thornberry with a much better chance.
4. If he blessed Thornberry as his successor, members would vote for her.
EDIT I have a bet at 1.9 that he will exit in 2020 or later. That's my only bet on him.
If betfair only gives him a 60% chance of making it to the end of 2019, I'd say that was an excellent buying opportunity (bar the small returns - but it's still value).
Ref your comments:
1. He is taking stick, but not as much as 2016-17. Whatever else happens now, his supporters will always be able to answer "but it'll come right at the election, like last time". It must do his self-confidence some good too to have had that experience before and come through it so strongly.
2. True, but then neither does anyone else. FWIW, i think he'd be mad to make any kind of understanding of that kind with anyone.
3. True - but it doesn't seem to be grinding him down yet. And the likes of macDonnell and Milne will be there to support him if it does.
4. I tend to agree with that but all the same, elections are inherently unpredictable as he himself has proven at least twice.
Astounding this took so long to surface, and astounding there was no-one at the home office with the political nous to see what was coming, and get it sorted.
Like Brexit.
When is Corbyn going to get around to doing something about anti-semitism?
At the least this has ended her leadership hopes
I think, alongside that, it took time to force out the Blairites from the party. Until JC saved the party (that's sarcasm by the way, in case you're alarmed), we still had huge swathes of Labour under Blairite control. Slowly but surely they are being jemmied out of the party and the hard left is taking over. In all its thoroughly ugly glory.
As I have pointed out on the odd occasion, this is the new normal in the post-referendum world, where Leave successfully harnessed xenophobia to win. It's something that all Leave advocates should acknowledge they have played a part in creating.
Lets see
As for her policies, they are clearly correct in aim and principle. The Home Office have badly screwed up the implementation, but as I've pointed out, that goes back decades. In any case, as I've also pointed out, no-one from the 'Windrush generation' affected by these rules would have been able to get a new job after 2008 when Labour's 2006 Act came into force; am I supposed to blame Theresa May for that as well?
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/986551143672229889
So get rid of officers working on hate crimes but more should be done to combat anti-semitism?
Who is responsible for police funding? If it's Khan's fault why are the police blaming the government? Why are police numbers nationally at a record low?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crime-rises-statistics-england-wales-police-officer-numbers-record-low-government-tories-labour-cuts-a8178631.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/30/scotland-yard-warns-of-policing-cuts-if-budget-reduces-officer-numbers
Khan of course has called for a significant increase in stop and search - in contrast to other Labour politicians. Whether he is right or not is a separate issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/04/stop-search-not-make-london-safer-diane-abbott-violent-crime
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43807190
TalkSport take overseas cricket rights from BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-43807117
It will make BT Sports doing the Ashes look like the pinnacle of sports coverage.
And you miss the point. You can't pick and mix your xenophobia, whip it up when it suits you (as it suited you two years ago) then profess to be shocked at the consequences.
We need only look at the Met's idiotic behaviour over the dead thief to see how resources can be squandered needlessly in a way contrary to the interests and desires of victims of crime (the pensioner in this case) and the innocent.
Khan has only called for a rise in stop-and-search very recently, having previously opposed it.
Anti-semitism in the Labour Party is not a matter solely for the police but requires action and support from the Labour leadership.
I’d also point out that for the 02-03 Ashes, the BBC just used the host radio coverage with Agnew the English representative.
Not so long ago - the attitude of many would have been to blame black people for losing records/not getting a passport/whatever else they should have done. That doesn't seem to be a significant view at all. I suspect had the main group disadvantaged been Muslim we would not have seen the same reaction from the popular press.
I don't concur with the many commentators who seem to think that we should abandon the perfectly sensible policy of ensuring the British state only supports those who are entitled to it, nor do I concur with the subset of those commentators who are implicitly calling for uncontrolled immigration.
German police attribute more than 90% of cases nationwide to far-right offenders. But Jewish activists and victim representatives say the data is misleading because police automatically label any incident where the perpetrators aren’t known as coming from the far right.
Germany has some very odd approaches to policing / law enforcement. A bit like their ridiculous limbo dancing not to name / provide details of the background of terrorist suspects.
To those not signed up to the Conservative mantra, it looks more like an Augean Stables.
Fundamentally, he's an optimist - he thinks that the situation is retrievable - while I'm a pessimist - the disaster is now unavoidable and has to be endured.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/986562330677923840
We will see no improvement in our politics until the majority of these people are removed and replaced in both government and opposition by people who not only have vision but the ability to actually get stuff done without perpetual cockups.
No, says May. The decision was taken in 2009 under a Labour government.
Ahem. As I said yesterday was likely.
Did they not check this in his back office?
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/986562127669362688