I would have thought such Mailesque rhetoric beneath you, Richard.
If the Windrush case has not demonstrated that undocumented is not equivalent to "shouldn't be here", then have not the tens of thousands of immigration appeals, a very large percentage of which have been won by the appellants (after delays averaging a year) ?
The policy was Windrush on steroids.
I don't disagree with your main sentiment, the delays and bureaucracy are appalling.
As an aside I've never been very impressed by the argument that a large percentage of appeals are won, in any context. You'd always expect a large percentage of appeals to be won, given that only those with a good case are likely to appeal in the first place, unless it's extremely easy and cheap to appeal (which it isn't)....
Looking at the relative numbers of deportations and appeals, it's quite clear that explanation does not hold water.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
Of course it hasn't. Labour can't have it both ways, claiming that the minister is responsible if was Theresa May, but not if it was a Labour minister.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
Of course it hasn't. Labour can't have it both ways, claiming that the minister is responsible if was Theresa May, but not if it was a Labour minister.
The PM's words were '...unfortunate confusion and anxiety ...'
That's a slight understatement for those who were illegally sacked, denied benefits and/or forcibly detained pending deportation.
At times like this I wish ministers were personally liable for decisions made going apparently beyond what the law allows. Company directors and elected local councillors are legally responsible.
'Creating a hostile environment' is completely the wrong language for government to use. Only a 'nasty party' gets into that field.
Corbyn wasted time by asking when the decision to destroy the documents was taken clearly not seeing the own goal coming. Who the f*** is advising him on the right questions to ask?
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
Hang on a minute, wasn't Corbyn trying to hold a Tory Home Secretary responsible ... ??
He was, but then TMay went and implied that it was a Labour government that did it. And people got excited from the belief that Labour took the decision in 2009.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No, it doesn't. It was Corbyn's claim that the Home Office, May's Home Office, was responsible.
It does because the whole excitment arose from the belief that it was a Labour government that took the decision.
No, it was because it was taken under the Labour government. Corbyn was trying to blame Theresa May (wrongly even if it had been when she was Home Sec), and rightly has been demolished.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
Hang on a minute, wasn't Corbyn trying to hold a Tory Home Secretary responsible ... ??
He was, but then TMay went and implied that it was a Labour government that did it. And people got excited from the belief that Labour took the decision in 2009.
I think the expression "sauce for the goose.." applies here. Corbyn was quite rightly demolished.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No. The decision was taken when Labour was in power. That is all that was said.
Neither May nor Rudd can be held accountable for decisions taken whilst Labour was in charge.
The facts are clear. The decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009. Labour was running things then.
They can be held accountable for all the mess ups that did take place under their watch though.
The facts are clear (from the tweet posted above) that it wasn’t the Labour government was who took the decision. Which was the impression given in PMQs.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No, it doesn't. It was Corbyn's claim that the Home Office, May's Home Office, was responsible.
It does because the whole excitment arose from the belief that it was a Labour government that took the decision.
No, it was because it was taken under the Labour government. Corbyn was trying to blame Theresa May (wrongly even if it had been when she was Home Sec), and rightly has been demolished.
If that was the case we wouldn’t have needed the clarification. Corbyn should have been corrected with the info provided in the clarification.
Corbyn and heavy-calibre weaponry really don't mix, especially in the feet area....
Somebody in Labour thought Windrush was the whizzo-wheeze distraction from Syria/anti-semitism. But they were not playing the game six moves ahead....
I don’t think Windrush can be described as a distraction given how serious the story is. Although given how many on this site aren’t happy with the amount of coverage antisemitism has received it looks like they do believe the government’s problems on Windrush has limited the attention given to Labour.
Windrush is a mess being dealt with. The PM has shown a determination to fess up for the cock-up - and to ensure that the situation is remedied so that nobody has to endure the hurt further. Even though part of the SNAFU is down to the previous Labour Govt. It was a 24 hour cause celebre for the Left until it all got a bit, well, embarrassing when their hand was at the tiller.
Contrast with the ongoing anti-semitism mess, that is not being dealt with. The Leader of the Opposition - a man who has made a career of cheering on injustice and inequality - has shown a determination NOT to fess up for something far, far more grave than a cock-up.
Somebody high up in Labour saw the anti-semitism debate coming down the pike and looked around for a distraction. That they would do that with Windrush - a matter as serious as you concede it is - shows at best a degree of professional cynicism in doing their job.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No. The decision was taken when Labour was in power. That is all that was said.
Neither May nor Rudd can be held accountable for decisions taken whilst Labour was in charge.
The facts are clear. The decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009. Labour was running things then.
They can be held accountable for all the mess ups that did take place under their watch though.
The facts are clear (from the tweet posted above) that it wasn’t the Labour government was who took the decision. Which was the impression given in PMQs.
Labour was in government in 2009 when the decision was taken. The language used in PMQs was clear and precise. Labour is responsible for decisions taken whilst it was in power there is no way round that unless you can prove that relevant ministers tried to prevent it and were thwarted by their dastardly officials.
If that was the case we wouldn’t have needed the clarification. Corbyn should have been corrected with the info provided in the clarification.
Nonsense. May was asked a question by him, she answered it. She didn't say a Labour minister took the decision, and frankly no-one with an ounce of knowledge of government would ever have thought the Home Sec would take a decision like that on a minor operational matter within the semi-autonomous UKBA.
Corbyn's attack was stupid, and would have been even if the decision had been taken under the coalition. He deserves all the ridicule he's getting.
Anti Semitism doesn't resonate because people don't believe the left are racist. Had it been the Tories facing these accusations whether true or imagined it would have made a difference.
Only stupid people think racism has a political alignment.
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.
But here's the thing: who would want to be a politician?
Presume PB Tories will assume he can just type with his fingers crossed!!
Jeremy Corbyn Verified account
@jeremycorbyn 54m54 minutes ago More I pay tribute to MPs who spoke in yesterday's antisemitism debate, whose harrowing experiences remind us of the urgent need to eradicate antisemitism from politics and society.
There is no excuse for abuse of any kind, and I want to thank them for their bravery in speaking out.
18 hours later? That's a calculated insult, not a statement.
In any case the problem isn't that he doesn't come out with words condemning anti-semitism, it's that he doesn't actually do anything about it, and seems rather close to some very unpleasant embodiments of it.
I think, for the public, the apology works.
But for his colleagues - flesh and blood people - then he looks callous.
This is the scum who Labour have allowed into their ranks on a £3 trip.
Are these the Tory "scum" who paid £3 to become members to vote for Corbyn because they thought it would harm the Labour party?
I suspect that some of the abuse of Jewish Labour MPs on social media are from Tories pretending to be Labour members in order to increase damage. Why do I think that? Track record. It's the Tory way.
Corbyn and heavy-calibre weaponry really don't mix, especially in the feet area....
Somebody in Labour thought Windrush was the whizzo-wheeze distraction from Syria/anti-semitism. But they were not playing the game six moves ahead....
I don’t think Windrush can be described as a distraction given how serious the story is. Although given how many on this site aren’t happy with the amount of coverage antisemitism has received it looks like they do believe the government’s problems on Windrush has limited the attention given to Labour.
Windrush is a mess being dealt with. The PM has shown a determination to fess up for the cock-up - and to ensure that the situation is remedied so that nobody has to endure the hurt further. Even though part of the SNAFU is down to the previous Labour Govt. It was a 24 hour cause celebre for the Left until it all got a bit, well, embarrassing when their hand was at the tiller.
Contrast with the ongoing anti-semitism mess, that is not being dealt with. The Leader of the Opposition - a man who has made a career of cheering on injustice and inequality - has shown a determination NOT to fess up for something far, far more grave than a cock-up.
Somebody high up in Labour saw the anti-semitism debate coming down the pike and looked around for a distraction. That they would do that with Windrush - a matter as serious as you concede it is - shows at best a degree of professional cynicism in doing their job.
Shown determination? She recused a meeting with leaders on Sunday and only caved into pressure on that when the Daily Mail and The Sun got involved. As she as PM and this happened under her watch, with many reports suggesting that the hostile environment policy is to blame for much of this, we need to see action from a May before we start praising her. If anything given it’s a problem that looks to be self created praise would be odd. It would be like praising Corbyn for dealing with antisemitism.
You think the Left are celebrating this? You’d lose your mind if anyone accused the Right of celebrating the anti semitism scandal. I don’t see how it’s become embarrassing for them as we’ve found out that the decision wasn’t take by the Labour government. Unless you think that the story won’t be able how this happened under this government’s watch, particularly in relation to the hostile environment policy. I’d say that is wishful thinking.
I agree that Corbyn’s not dealing with anti semitism. But Corbyn discussing the Windrush issue is what you’d expect of an opposition, not part of some evil plot to distract from anti semitism.
Corbyn and heavy-calibre weaponry really don't mix, especially in the feet area....
Somebody in Labour thought Windrush was the whizzo-wheeze distraction from Syria/anti-semitism. But they were not playing the game six moves ahead....
I don’t think Windrush can be described as a distraction given how serious the story is. Although given how many on this site aren’t happy with the amount of coverage antisemitism has received it looks like they do believe the government’s problems on Windrush has limited the attention given to Labour.
Windrush is a mess being dealt with. The PM has shown a determination to fess up for the cock-up - and to ensure that the situation is remedied so that nobody has to endure the hurt further. Even though part of the SNAFU is down to the previous Labour Govt. It was a 24 hour cause celebre for the Left until it all got a bit, well, embarrassing when their hand was at the tiller.
Contrast with the ongoing anti-semitism mess, that is not being dealt with. The Leader of the Opposition - a man who has made a career of cheering on injustice and inequality - has shown a determination NOT to fess up for something far, far more grave than a cock-up.
Somebody high up in Labour saw the anti-semitism debate coming down the pike and looked around for a distraction. That they would do that with Windrush - a matter as serious as you concede it is - shows at best a degree of professional cynicism in doing their job.
But May hasn't fully apologised; see my post 7 mins ago. She seems to think the worst that has happened is that people have had trouble when applying to an employer for a new job. People have had everything happen to them except actually being forced onto a plane in handcuffs.
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.
This matter has legs depending on how the question of EU citizens’ rights are handled.
Both my parents came to this country rather than being born here. After their deaths when I was sorting their papers I found nothing which would have told me when they first came into the country let alone the legal basis for their continued residence. I can well imagine how frightening it must be for elderly people from the West Indies suddenly being asked to produce documents they don’t have under pain of deportation.
If a similarly heartless and incompetent approach is adopted to EU citizens, then this could affect a large number of people.
If it is not to be a continuing sore, the government needs to:-
1. get a grip on the Windrush issue; 2. sort it; 3. pay generous compensation quickly to anyone affected; 4. review the rules for the future and change where appropriate after proper consultation; and 5. reach an agreement on the future of EU citizens which does not lead to similar problems in future.
Looks like it will be between Le Pen and Melenchon at the moment as to who faces Macron in that run off
It's quite possible that the runoff will be between Le Pen & Melenchon, if Macron loses popularity. There's a lot to be said for the traditional broad-church left & right...
There is the distinct sense on this board that after many months on the back foot the multitudes of Tories have finally found a chink in the Messiah's armour. I can only see a chimera. Anti Semitism doesn't resonate because people don't believe the left are racist. Had it been the Tories facing these accusations whether true or imagined it would have made a difference.
Not quite as vile as your post about the rape victim yesterday but on the way
If that was the case we wouldn’t have needed the clarification. Corbyn should have been corrected with the info provided in the clarification.
Nonsense. May was asked a question by him, she answered it. She didn't say a Labour minister took the decision, and frankly no-one with an ounce of knowledge of government would ever have thought the Home Sec would take a decision like that on a minor operational matter within the semi-autonomous UKBA.
Corbyn's attack was stupid, and would have been even if the decision had been taken under the coalition. He deserves all the ridicule he's getting.
It’s not nonsense. If it was the case that no one with an ‘ounce of knowledge’ would have thought it was taken by the government then we wouldn’t have needed the clarification, because, well it would have been obvious.
Wasn't there a WC qualifier a few years ago where due to a flaw in the way in which teams tied on points were going to be ranked, they had two teams who spent the last 10-15 mins of the match desperately trying to score in their own goals?
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.
But here's the thing: who would want to be a politician?
If that was the case we wouldn’t have needed the clarification. Corbyn should have been corrected with the info provided in the clarification.
Nonsense. May was asked a question by him, she answered it. She didn't say a Labour minister took the decision, and frankly no-one with an ounce of knowledge of government would ever have thought the Home Sec would take a decision like that on a minor operational matter within the semi-autonomous UKBA.
Corbyn's attack was stupid, and would have been even if the decision had been taken under the coalition. He deserves all the ridicule he's getting.
It’s not nonsense. If it was the case that no one with an ‘ounce of knowledge’ would have thought it was taken by the government then we wouldn’t have needed the clarification, because, well it would have been obvious.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No. The decision was taken when Labour was in power. That is all that was said.
Neither May nor Rudd can be held accountable for decisions taken whilst Labour was in charge.
The facts are clear. The decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009. Labour was running things then.
They can be held accountable for all the mess ups that did take place under their watch though.
The facts are clear (from the tweet posted above) that it wasn’t the Labour government was who took the decision. Which was the impression given in PMQs.
Labour was in government in 2009 when the decision was taken. The language used in PMQs was clear and precise. Labour is responsible for decisions taken whilst it was in power there is no way round that unless you can prove that relevant ministers tried to prevent it and were thwarted by their dastardly officials.
The government is responsible for a decision it didn’t take? If the language was so precise and clear, I ask why the need for the clarification?
@Pulpstar Then why the need for the clarification?
I'll take the implied compliment that my opinion matters, but I'm not in the habit of giving a running commentary on every single passing news story, especially ones I haven't read up on.
Wasn't there a WC qualifier a few years ago where due to a flaw in the way in which teams tied on points were going to be ranked, they had two teams who spent the last 10-15 mins of the match desperately trying to score in their own goals?
Not a WC qualifier. The organisers had decreed that every game had to have a winner, and that goals in extra-time would count double.
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.
But here's the thing: who would want to be a politician?
Hello.
When you become PM can I be your Downing Street Chief of Staff?
If I follow Ed Llewelyn’s career path then my job after that will be Ambassador to France.
Can you think of anyone more suited to be Ambassador to France than me?
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No. The decision was taken when Labour was in power. That is all that was said.
Neither May nor Rudd can be held accountable for decisions taken whilst Labour was in charge.
The facts are clear. The decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009. Labour was running things then.
They can be held accountable for all the mess ups that did take place under their watch though.
The facts are clear (from the tweet posted above) that it wasn’t the Labour government was who took the decision. Which was the impression given in PMQs.
Labour was in government in 2009 when the decision was taken. The language used in PMQs was clear and precise. Labour is responsible for decisions taken whilst it was in power there is no way round that unless you can prove that relevant ministers tried to prevent it and were thwarted by their dastardly officials.
The government is responsible for a decision it didn’t take? If the language was so precise and clear, I ask why the need for the clarification?
@Pulpstar Then why the need for the clarification?
Because PMQs is a rowdy affair where things might be misinterpreted, and people are trying to trip each other up. So the matter is clarified thereafter - but It is not May's job to explain every last word to Corbyn at PMQs. He needs to listen to the exact words she uses, then respond with appropriate questions and follow ups.
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.
But here's the thing: who would want to be a politician?
Hello.
When you become PM can I be your Downing Street Chief of Staff?
If I follow Ed Llewelyn’s career path then my job after that will be Ambassador to France.
Can you think of anyone more suited to be Ambassador to France than me?
Maybe I'll appoint my dad. He's kept plenty of vineyards in business.
I'll take the implied compliment that my opinion matters, but I'm not in the habit of giving a running commentary on every single passing news story, especially ones I haven't read up on.
Presume PB Tories will assume he can just type with his fingers crossed!!
Jeremy Corbyn Verified account
@jeremycorbyn 54m54 minutes ago More I pay tribute to MPs who spoke in yesterday's antisemitism debate, whose harrowing experiences remind us of the urgent need to eradicate antisemitism from politics and society.
There is no excuse for abuse of any kind, and I want to thank them for their bravery in speaking out.
18 hours later? That's a calculated insult, not a statement.
In any case the problem isn't that he doesn't come out with words condemning anti-semitism, it's that he doesn't actually do anything about it, and seems rather close to some very unpleasant embodiments of it.
I think, for the public, the apology works.
But for his colleagues - flesh and blood people - then he looks callous.
This is the scum who Labour have allowed into their ranks on a £3 trip.
Are these the Tory "scum" who paid £3 to become members to vote for Corbyn because they thought it would harm the Labour party?
I suspect that some of the abuse of Jewish Labour MPs on social media are from Tories pretending to be Labour members in order to increase damage. Why do I think that? Track record. It's the Tory way.
Any evidence for that last statement? Because it seems to fly in the face of the facts we do have and to be a nasty smear, to boot.
I explained why I think that. It's the same reasoning we apply to Salisbury and Russia.
Capability tick Motivation tick Track Record tick
Blaming the Russians for Salisbury does not fly in the face of facts and is not a nasty smear. Neither is this.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No. The decision was taken when Labour was in power. That is all that was said.
Neither May nor Rudd can be held accountable for decisions taken whilst Labour was in charge.
The facts are clear. The decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009. Labour was running things then.
They can be held accountable for all the mess ups that did take place under their watch though.
The facts are clear (from the tweet posted above) that it wasn’t the Labour government was who took the decision. Which was the impression given in PMQs.
Labour was in government in 2009 when the decision was taken. The language used in PMQs was clear and precise. Labour is responsible for decisions taken whilst it was in power there is no way round that unless you can prove that relevant ministers tried to prevent it and were thwarted by their dastardly officials.
The government is responsible for a decision it didn’t take? If the language was so precise and clear, I ask why the need for the clarification?
@Pulpstar Then why the need for the clarification?
Just give up - any government is responsible for decisions taken by officials during their time in office - that is how the system works. There is no way round it - no matter how you try to wriggle.
There is no way you can hold any Tory accountable for a decision taken by a government department in 2009. The only people who can be held accountable for that are those who held office at the time.
Not really. It was a very clever put down of Corbyn, however it was also an incredibly smug riposte under the depressing circumstances of the Windrush generation issue.
Kicking Corbyn is normally good value, I believe this time, in order to get a cheap laugh at Corbyn's expense she kicked the Windrush 'illegals'... again!
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No. The decision was taken when Labour was in power. That is all that was said.
Neither May nor Rudd can be held accountable for decisions taken whilst Labour was in charge.
The facts are clear. The decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009. Labour was running things then.
They can be held accountable for all the mess ups that did take place under their watch though.
The facts are clear (from the tweet posted above) that it wasn’t the Labour government was who took the decision. Which was the impression given in PMQs.
Labour was in government in 2009 when the decision was taken. The language used in PMQs was clear and precise. Labour is responsible for decisions taken whilst it was in power there is no way round that unless you can prove that relevant ministers tried to prevent it and were thwarted by their dastardly officials.
The government is responsible for a decision it didn’t take? If the language was so precise and clear, I ask why the need for the clarification?
@Pulpstar Then why the need for the clarification?
Because PMQs is a rowdy affair where things might be misinterpreted, and people are trying to trip each other up. So the matter is clarified thereafter - but It is not May's job to explain every last word to Corbyn at PMQs. He needs to listen to the exact words she uses, then respond with appropriate questions and follow ups.
So because PMQs is rowdy, we need clarifications. So clearly the information given by May needed further clarifications.
Re your second point it’s not her job to do that for Corbyn - I’m not interested in May educating him. But the public - especially those effected by Windrush issue - should know.
I'll take the implied compliment that my opinion matters, but I'm not in the habit of giving a running commentary on every single passing news story, especially ones I haven't read up on.
You mean especially ones that don't fit your narrative.
If that was the case we wouldn’t have needed the clarification. Corbyn should have been corrected with the info provided in the clarification.
Nonsense. May was asked a question by him, she answered it. She didn't say a Labour minister took the decision, and frankly no-one with an ounce of knowledge of government would ever have thought the Home Sec would take a decision like that on a minor operational matter within the semi-autonomous UKBA.
Corbyn's attack was stupid, and would have been even if the decision had been taken under the coalition. He deserves all the ridicule he's getting.
It’s not nonsense. If it was the case that no one with an ‘ounce of knowledge’ would have thought it was taken by the government then we wouldn’t have needed the clarification, because, well it would have been obvious.
Perhaps not obvious to everyone:
The Labour MP David Lammy said: “This revelation from a whistleblower reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty within our immigration system.
“It is an absolute disgrace that the Home Office has destroyed these documents and then forced Windrush-generation migrants to try and prove their status, threatening them with deportation and stripping them of their rights.
“This was no accident and the orders to destroys records must have come from somebody at the top of the department. It is time for the home secretary to do the honourable thing, take responsibility for this fiasco and resign.”
I'll take the implied compliment that my opinion matters, but I'm not in the habit of giving a running commentary on every single passing news story, especially ones I haven't read up on.
Is it because it's not about Brexit?
My last five thread headers have been about (in reverse order):
1) The prospects in the local elections 2) The decline of Britain's coastal towns 3) The Hungarian elections 4) Future employment in an AI world 5) The individual constituency swings in the 2017 general election
I might, however, return to Brexit in the near future. I know how eagerly those threads are awaited.
So because PMQs is rowdy, we need clarifications. So clearly the information given by May needed further clarifications.
Re your second point it’s not her job to do that for Corbyn - I’m not interested in May educating him. But the public - especially those effected by Windrush issue - should know.
Listen - I'm no Maybot, but she seems to have been careful in her choice of language at PMQs today and mde Corbyn's question and whole line of attack look a bit silly.
Well that’s just gone and blown away the moment that people here (and in Twitter) were getting so excited about.
No. The decision was taken when Labour was in power. That is all that was said.
Neither May nor Rudd can be held accountable for decisions taken whilst Labour was in charge.
The facts are clear. The decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009. Labour was running things then.
The facts are clear (from the tweet posted above) that it wasn’t the Labour government was who took the decision. Which was the impression given in PMQs.
Labour was in government in 2009 when the decision was taken. The language used in PMQs was clear and precise. Labour is responsible for decisions taken whilst it was in power there is no way round that unless you can prove that relevant ministers tried to prevent it and were thwarted by their dastardly officials.
The government is responsible for a decision it didn’t take? If the language was so precise and clear, I ask why the need for the clarification?
@Pulpstar Then why the need for the clarification?
Just give up - any government is responsible for decisions taken by officials during their time in office - that is how the system works. There is no way round it - no matter how you try to wriggle.
There is no way you can hold any Tory accountable for a decision taken by a government department in 2009. The only people who can be held accountable for that are those who held office at the time.
I’m not ‘giving up.’ This isn’t the first time I’ve disagreed with a majority (or many) of this site and it won’t be the last.
As I said before, a government can’t be responsible for a decision it doesn’t take. I’m not interested in blaming the Tories for this particular matter either - I wasn’t one if the people out of the blocks looking to blame them when the story first claim out yesterday after all.
I know, worrying news on the housing front for the capital.
I think you mean fantastic news for the capital on housing.
Depends if you're looking to buy, or have just bought (particularly one of those H2B new flats with the Greenfell cladding...) !
-7.9% (Tower Hamlets) is not good for society as a while, but ~0% growth in nominal terms is good for pretty much everyone. No windfall for homeowners but no negative equity trap either.
I'll take the implied compliment that my opinion matters, but I'm not in the habit of giving a running commentary on every single passing news story, especially ones I haven't read up on.
You mean especially ones that don't fit your narrative.
So far as I have a narrative (I don't), it certainly does not exclude the idea that other European countries, like Britain, are becoming degraded in their public policy debates.
If that was the case we wouldn’t have needed the clarification. Corbyn should have been corrected with the info provided in the clarification.
Nonsense. May was asked a question by him, she answered it. She didn't say a Labour minister took the decision, and frankly no-one with an ounce of knowledge of government would ever have thought the Home Sec would take a decision like that on a minor operational matter within the semi-autonomous UKBA.
Corbyn's attack was stupid, and would have been even if the decision had been taken under the coalition. He deserves all the ridicule he's getting.
It’s not nonsense. If it was the case that no one with an ‘ounce of knowledge’ would have thought it was taken by the government then we wouldn’t have needed the clarification, because, well it would have been obvious.
Perhaps not obvious to everyone:
The Labour MP David Lammy said: “This revelation from a whistleblower reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty within our immigration system.
“It is an absolute disgrace that the Home Office has destroyed these documents and then forced Windrush-generation migrants to try and prove their status, threatening them with deportation and stripping them of their rights.
“This was no accident and the orders to destroys records must have come from somebody at the top of the department. It is time for the home secretary to do the honourable thing, take responsibility for this fiasco and resign.”
-7.9% (Tower Hamlets) is not good for society as a while, but ~0% growth in nominal terms is good for pretty much everyone. No windfall for homeowners but no negative equity trap either.
Flat nominal houseprices are probably the optimum for the whole of the UK, as wage inflation returns affordability - but householders don't fall into either negative equity (or higher implied LTV than the previous remortgage).
I’m not ‘giving up.’ This isn’t the first time I’ve disagreed with a majority (or many) of this site and it won’t be the last.
As I said before, a government can’t be responsible for a decision it doesn’t take. I’m not interested in blaming the Tories for this particular matter either - I wasn’t one if the people out of the blocks looking to blame them when the story first claim out yesterday after all.
Ministers are accountable for their officials - that is how it works. If the official can be shown to have broken the law or other rules relating to their employment then that is a different matter. But ministers are accountable for acts and decisions taken by officials in their department and associated bodies.
I'll take the implied compliment that my opinion matters, but I'm not in the habit of giving a running commentary on every single passing news story, especially ones I haven't read up on.
Is it because it's not about Brexit?
My last five thread headers have been about (in reverse order):
1) The prospects in the local elections 2) The decline of Britain's coastal towns 3) The Hungarian elections 4) Future employment in an AI world 5) The individual constituency swings in the 2017 general election
I might, however, return to Brexit in the near future. I know how eagerly those threads are awaited.
Weighed against that, your last five thousand posts have been about the xenophobia of Brexit.....
I'll take the implied compliment that my opinion matters, but I'm not in the habit of giving a running commentary on every single passing news story, especially ones I haven't read up on.
Is it because it's not about Brexit?
My last five thread headers have been about (in reverse order):
1) The prospects in the local elections 2) The decline of Britain's coastal towns 3) The Hungarian elections 4) Future employment in an AI world 5) The individual constituency swings in the 2017 general election
I might, however, return to Brexit in the near future. I know how eagerly those threads are awaited.
Weighed against that, your last five thousand posts have been about the xenophobia of Brexit.....
I appreciate that you hate the fact that I don't conceal my disgust for the disgraceful way in which Leave advocates have and continue to behave by pandering to xenophobia and desperately trying to pretend that they didn't in the face of abundant evidence. You'll just have to deal with it.
I'll take the implied compliment that my opinion matters, but I'm not in the habit of giving a running commentary on every single passing news story, especially ones I haven't read up on.
All opinions matter - we just hear rather a lot of yours. You'd be all over this one like a rash if it fitted your narrative.
Comments
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2018-01-17/123516/
The number of appeals allowed in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) over the last three years is: 2014/2015 – 26,394; 2015/2016 – 20,539 and 2016/2017 – 23,275.
Around 50% were successful, I believe.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2017/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned
The total number of enforced returns from the UK, including those not directly from detention, decreased by 4% to 12,666 in the year ending March 2017 compared with 13,248 in the previous year. This includes 10,969 enforced removals and 1,697 other returns from detention. In the same period, there were 24,786 voluntary returns (excluding returns from detention)….
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/986496642944815104?s=20
That's a slight understatement for those who were illegally sacked, denied benefits and/or forcibly detained pending deportation.
At times like this I wish ministers were personally liable for decisions made going apparently beyond what the law allows. Company directors and elected local councillors are legally responsible.
'Creating a hostile environment' is completely the wrong language for government to use. Only a 'nasty party' gets into that field.
Corbyn wasted time by asking when the decision to destroy the documents was taken clearly not seeing the own goal coming. Who the f*** is advising him on the right questions to ask?
Neither May nor Rudd can be held accountable for decisions taken whilst Labour was in charge.
The facts are clear. The decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009. Labour was running things then.
Corbyn was quite rightly demolished.
The facts are clear (from the tweet posted above) that it wasn’t the Labour government was who took the decision. Which was the impression given in PMQs.
Oh!!!! Jeremy Corbyn!!!
Plank
https://order-order.com/2018/04/18/may-labour-took-decision-destroy-windrush-landing-cards-2009/
Jezza asked was May herself when home secretary who signed this off, May said "the decision was taken in 2009 UNDER A LABOUR GOVERNMENT".
She didn't say it was Labour home office minister etc.
Contrast with the ongoing anti-semitism mess, that is not being dealt with. The Leader of the Opposition - a man who has made a career of cheering on injustice and inequality - has shown a determination NOT to fess up for something far, far more grave than a cock-up.
Somebody high up in Labour saw the anti-semitism debate coming down the pike and looked around for a distraction. That they would do that with Windrush - a matter as serious as you concede it is - shows at best a degree of professional cynicism in doing their job.
Oh dear!
I miss Dave.
https://youtu.be/eLcwhgrxTWs
Corbyn's attack was stupid, and would have been even if the decision had been taken under the coalition. He deserves all the ridicule he's getting.
https://theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/apr/18/pmqs-may-corbyn-eu-withdrawal-bill-lords-ministers-face-questioning-by-peers-over-brexit-meaningful-vote-politics-live
@TheJezziah et al - look away now.
You are another one who refuses to face facts
https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/986576674056753153?s=21
You think the Left are celebrating this? You’d lose your mind if anyone accused the Right of celebrating the anti semitism scandal. I don’t see how it’s become embarrassing for them as we’ve found out that the decision wasn’t take by the Labour government. Unless you think that the story won’t be able how this happened under this government’s watch, particularly in relation to the hostile environment policy. I’d say that is wishful thinking.
I agree that Corbyn’s not dealing with anti semitism. But Corbyn discussing the Windrush issue is what you’d expect of an opposition, not part of some evil plot to distract from anti semitism.
https://twitter.com/singharj/status/986562674338271232
@Pulpstar Then why the need for the clarification?
If May has said he won't she better bloody well be right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_4–2_Grenada_(1994_Caribbean_Cup_qualification)
If I follow Ed Llewelyn’s career path then my job after that will be Ambassador to France.
Can you think of anyone more suited to be Ambassador to France than me?
Capability tick
Motivation tick
Track Record tick
Blaming the Russians for Salisbury does not fly in the face of facts and is not a nasty smear. Neither is this.
There is no way you can hold any Tory accountable for a decision taken by a government department in 2009. The only people who can be held accountable for that are those who held office at the time.
Kicking Corbyn is normally good value, I believe this time, in order to get a cheap laugh at Corbyn's expense she kicked the Windrush 'illegals'... again!
Well apart from John Owls and Hunchman that is
Re your second point it’s not her job to do that for Corbyn - I’m not interested in May educating him. But the public - especially those effected by Windrush issue - should know.
The Labour MP David Lammy said: “This revelation from a whistleblower reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty within our immigration system.
“It is an absolute disgrace that the Home Office has destroyed these documents and then forced Windrush-generation migrants to try and prove their status, threatening them with deportation and stripping them of their rights.
“This was no accident and the orders to destroys records must have come from somebody at the top of the department. It is time for the home secretary to do the honourable thing, take responsibility for this fiasco and resign.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer
In which case, why has someone been briefing “2010”?
1) The prospects in the local elections
2) The decline of Britain's coastal towns
3) The Hungarian elections
4) Future employment in an AI world
5) The individual constituency swings in the 2017 general election
I might, however, return to Brexit in the near future. I know how eagerly those threads are awaited.
As I said before, a government can’t be responsible for a decision it doesn’t take. I’m not interested in blaming the Tories for this particular matter either - I wasn’t one if the people out of the blocks looking to blame them when the story first claim out yesterday after all.
Simples
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/986493875673096192?s=21
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5629315/Boris-Berezovsky-killed-decided-return-Russia-Moscow-prosecutor.html
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/986562570487255040
https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/986571523711471618