Not been paying much attention to politics today, but it does seem as though Amber Rudd can tear up her leadership ambitions into a million pieces and scatter them on the winds....
The Hastings and Rye electorate did that for her last year to be fair...
Everyone is an illegal immigrant unless they prove that they have a right of abode. That applies to you and me as well as the Bangladeshis living 20 to a room in a bedsit. The only easy way to demonstrate your right of abode is with a UK passport. It is made deliberately difficult to prove your right of abode any other way or to obtain a UK passport if you don't already have one. The UKBA and Home Office make much less distinction between legal and illegal immigrants than you and other people realise. They are all presumed to be illegal.
Onto Windrush. Those people were illegal immigrants, despite living here essentially all their lives, because they were unable to prove their legality and Theresa May's policy made it deliberately difficult for them to do so.
Blimey, you do write some garbage.
I'm sure those affected would be surprised and shocked to be described by you as illegal immigrants, which is more than even the BNP would claim. Fortunately almost no-one else in the entire country, least of all the government, takes that view. That's because they are not: their rights were set out in the 1968 and 1971 Acts, and before that they were legal immigrants. What was missing from those Acts, and in retrospect it was a big mistake, was any straightforward documentation of their rights.
Amber Rudd, to her enormous credit, is now rapidly dealing with this issue. About time too, you might say; Home Secretaries of both parties have left it in administrative confusion for 50 years.
There is absolutely no point staying in the Customs Union as far as the Irish Border is concerned. Even if we stay in the CU we will still not be able to have the sort of border the EU and Ireland are claim is so sacrosanct. We are leaving the Single Market - something the British people certainly insist on. And if we leave the Single Market there will still have to be a border of some kind between North and South in Ireland.
The EU and Ireland are using the border issue to try and force the UK on the issue of the Customs Union. It is understandable but we should not go along with it. We need to call their bluff.
Yup. Do away with tariffs and let Varadkar build the border for the EU.
We should do away with tariffs anyway. Irrespective of what anyone else does. They are simply a tax on our own population.
My view entirely. They are instruments of self-harm.
Not this nonsense again.
To enjoy imports, you need hard currency.
How do you earn hard currency? Exports.
What helps increase exports? Better access to export markets through cuts in tariffs.
How do you incentivise cuts in tariffs? By offering to cut your own.
Unilateral tariff reductions take away the biggest carrot the government has for beneficial trade deals. It’s depressing how many Brexiteers wish to tie their hands in this way.
Ridiculous. If that were the case then Germany would never be able to export anything to anywhere else in the EU because of the lack of tariffs.
You've completely missed the point. Germany has reciprocal free trade within the EU. Unilaterally eliminating tariffs with third countries removes the leverage in a trade negotiation where the aim would be a reciprocal FTA.
I have not missed the point at all. We are never going to have entirely free trade through the sorts of FTAs you are suggesting because there will always be non tariff obstacles which will prevent completely free trade. Your answer - which is perfectly valid within your particular aspirations - is for the abolition of countries as we currently understand them. But for most sensible people that is an unacceptable price to pay for free trade.
There is absolutely no point staying in the Customs Union as far as the Irish Border is concerned. Even if we stay in the CU we will still not be able to have the sort of border the EU and Ireland are claim is so sacrosanct. We are leaving the Single Market - something the British people certainly insist on. And if we leave the Single Market there will still have to be a border of some kind between North and South in Ireland.
The EU and Ireland are using the border issue to try and force the UK on the issue of the Customs Union. It is understandable but we should not go along with it. We need to call their bluff.
Yup. Do away with tariffs and let Varadkar build the border for the EU.
We should do away with tariffs anyway. Irrespective of what anyone else does. They are simply a tax on our own population.
My view entirely. They are instruments of self-harm.
Not this nonsense again.
To enjoy imports, you need hard currency.
How do you earn hard currency? Exports.
What helps increase exports? Better access to export markets through cuts in tariffs.
How do you incentivise cuts in tariffs? By offering to cut your own.
Unilateral tariff reductions take away the biggest carrot the government has for beneficial trade deals. It’s depressing how many Brexiteers wish to tie their hands in this way.
Ridiculous. If that were the case then Germany would never be able to export anything to anywhere else in the EU because of the lack of tariffs.
You've completely missed the point. Germany has reciprocal free trade within the EU. Unilaterally eliminating tariffs with third countries removes the leverage in a trade negotiation where the aim would be a reciprocal FTA.
I have not missed the point at all. We are never going to have entirely free trade through the sorts of FTAs you are suggesting because there will always be non tariff obstacles which will prevent completely free trade. Your answer - which is perfectly valid within your particular aspirations - is for the abolition of countries as we currently understand them. But for most sensible people that is an unacceptable price to pay for free trade.
Sometimes it’s just easier to admit you got the wrong end of the stick.
Having wrestled with this conundrum, I'm going to eat his pizza by covering it in BBQ sauce and over dinner ask his thoughts about AV, Mark Reckless and Chris Williamson.....
He is already on a sticky wicket as he is also a Chelsea fan.....
So this scandal is still in the news despite the attempts to quarantine it earlier this week. Part of the problem for governments it’s that it’s very difficult to put public attitudes towards immigration into a coherent policy. For example, according to that YouGov poll, 64% believe the government has handled this issue badly. Yet people also still believe that the onus is on individuals to prove their legality and not for the government to prove their illegal status. So the government has pursued a policy that the public wanted/wants yet the public are not happy with its outcome. What did they expect?
Also, that self described ‘ordinary’ people poll YouGov have done made me laugh.
Sometimes it’s just easier to admit you got the wrong end of the stick.
Not at all. My comment was specifically directed at Williamglenn because he has admitted on here that he is opposed to the existence of independent countries.
On the wider issue, New Zealand has extremely low tariffs with no tariffs on 85% of imported goods. The maximum tariffs on the rest of the imported goods is 5%. That is the sort of thing we should be emulating as a start.
So this scandal is still in the news despite the attempts to quarantine it earlier this week. Part of the problem for governments it’s that it’s very difficult to put public attitudes towards immigration into a coherent policy. For example, according to that YouGov poll, 64% believe the government has handled this issue badly. Yet people also still believe that the onus is on individuals to prove their legality and not for the government to prove their illegal status. So the government has pursued a policy that the public wanted, yet the public are not happy with its outcome. What did they expect?
Actually I don't think it's that hard. I imagine that the vast majority of voters would take the straightforward view:
1. The Home Office should crack down on illegal immigrants, in particular by not paying them benefits and by making it hard for them to work illegally.
2. The Home Office should also exercise common sense in accepting evidence of entitlement for the 'Windrush' generation, for example by simply accepting National Insurance records (which the government already has) as clear and unambiguous evidence. The problem seems largely to have been that they've been asking for ridiculous amounts of documentary proof.
Everyone is an illegal immigrant unless they prove that they have a right of abode. That applies to you and me as well as the Bangladeshis living 20 to a room in a bedsit. The only easy way to demonstrate your right of abode is with a UK passport. It is made deliberately difficult to prove your right of abode any other way or to obtain a UK passport if you don't already have one. The UKBA and Home Office make much less distinction between legal and illegal immigrants than you and other people realise. They are all presumed to be illegal.
Onto Windrush. Those people were illegal immigrants, despite living here essentially all their lives, because they were unable to prove their legality and Theresa May's policy made it deliberately difficult for them to do so.
Blimey, you do write some garbage.
I'm sure those affected would be surprised and shocked to be described by you as illegal immigrants, which is more than even the BNP would claim. Fortunately almost no-one else in the entire country, least of all the government, takes that view. That's because they are not: their rights were set out in the 1968 and 1971 Acts, and before that they were legal immigrants. What was missing from those Acts, and in retrospect it was a big mistake, was any straightforward documentation of their rights.
Amber Rudd, to her enormous credit, is now rapidly dealing with this issue. About time too, you might say; Home Secretaries of both parties have left it in administrative confusion for 50 years.
Nice try.
She is abolishing targets that as recently as Wednesday she said didnt exist.
So this scandal is still in the news despite the attempts to quarantine it earlier this week. Part of the problem for governments it’s that it’s very difficult to put public attitudes towards immigration into a coherent policy. For example, according to that YouGov poll, 64% believe the government has handled this issue badly. Yet people also still believe that the onus is on individuals to prove their legality and not for the government to prove their illegal status. So the government has pursued a policy that the public wanted, yet the public are not happy with its outcome. What did they expect?
Actually I don't think it's that hard. I imagine that the vast majority of voters would take the straightforward view:
1. The Home Office should crack down on illegal immigrants, in particular by not paying them benefits and by making it hard for them to work illegally.
2. The Home Office should also exercise common sense in accepting evidence of entitlement for the 'Windrush' generation, for example by simply accepting National Insurance records (which the government already has) as clear and unambiguous evidence. The problem seems largely to have been that they've been asking for ridiculous amounts of documentary proof.
"The problem seems largely to have been that they've been asking for ridiculous amounts of documentary proof."
That was not the problem. That is the intention. Very few of these people had the money or the confidence to fight the state.
They were the "low hanging fruit".
You are absolutely right. Anyone who could provide [ by themselves or through others ] any document which proved they were in the UK before 1973 should automatically be accepted.
Personally , I would make it easier. Just accept anyone over the age of 45 with some proof of stay in this country, say, more than 10 years. Yes, some "illegals" will get through. How many ? And, what about the cost of verification ? Thousands of hours of tedious work.
Having wrestled with this conundrum, I'm going to eat his pizza by covering it in BBQ sauce and over dinner ask his thoughts about AV, Mark Reckless and Chris Williamson.....
He is already on a sticky wicket as he is also a Chelsea fan.....
A convent beckons for Miss Scrap at this rate.
Just pointing out, sticky wicket is a cricket term. Chelsea, some say, play football.
Having wrestled with this conundrum, I'm going to eat his pizza by covering it in BBQ sauce and over dinner ask his thoughts about AV, Mark Reckless and Chris Williamson.....
He is already on a sticky wicket as he is also a Chelsea fan.....
A convent beckons for Miss Scrap at this rate.
Just pointing out, sticky wicket is a cricket term. Chelsea, some say, play football.
I repeat, say little and offer wine. IME your good lady will ask more questions than he can politely answer.
Wide variation in May:Rudd blame ratio: Con 3.5:1, Lab 6:1, LD 22:1. If there is an element of, to coin a phrase, tactical hating here, I'd say it was the wrong way round. May is not directly vulnerable yet, but she's a lot closer to it if she loses her human shield, so the way to attack her is to say - at this stage - we think it was all Amber's fault - because Amber's position really is so precarious that opinion polls might affect it. Topple her, and you have a clear run at May, and the opportunity to change your mind and realise it was her fault all along.
Having wrestled with this conundrum, I'm going to eat his pizza by covering it in BBQ sauce and over dinner ask his thoughts about AV, Mark Reckless and Chris Williamson.....
He is already on a sticky wicket as he is also a Chelsea fan.....
A convent beckons for Miss Scrap at this rate.
I'm glad my pairing off days are behind me if this is the way courtship rituals are going. Why do you have to eat his pizza, and whose pizza does he eat?
What helps increase exports? Better access to export markets through cuts in tariffs.
How do you incentivise cuts in tariffs? By offering to cut your own.
Unilateral tariff reductions take away the biggest carrot the government has for beneficial trade deals. It’s depressing how many Brexiteers wish to tie their hands in this way.
To increase the living standards of its people, The best trade policy to unilaterally eliminate all tariffs and non tariff barreasre to the whole would. become fantastically wealthy and inspire other nations to drop their tariffs. this is backed up by both theory and practice.
While the teary is a bit to complex to explain in in a blog post, I highly recommend 'Principle of political economy' by David Ricardo. or 'Fallacy's of Protectionism' By Fredric Bastiat.
But simply, importing rice from Italy that is 30% more expensive to produce rather than rice from Bangladesh, simple reduces the spending power of British shoppers. By having different tariffs, on different goods from different contrary's, we massively insentience special interest lobbyists to try to affect governments policy, which has bad implications for our democracy.
if in one year our imports exceed our exports then the value of the currency will more which will affect the level of imports and exports. but by having no barriers we will have more trade and thus more specialization in to what we are good at improving productivity, and therefor standard of living.
When you UK abolished all tariffs with the repeal of the corn Laws in 1848, we whet on to become an economic powerhouse, something that withed post WW1 when tariffs where gradually reimposed. since then Singapore and New Zealand have adopted almost complete removal of tariffs and both have prospered as a result.
So this scandal is still in the news despite the attempts to quarantine it earlier this week. Part of the problem for governments it’s that it’s very difficult to put public attitudes towards immigration into a coherent policy. For example, according to that YouGov poll, 64% believe the government has handled this issue badly. Yet people also still believe that the onus is on individuals to prove their legality and not for the government to prove their illegal status. So the government has pursued a policy that the public wanted/wants yet the public are not happy with its outcome. What did they expect?
Also, that self described ‘ordinary’ people poll YouGov have done made me laugh.
What the public dislikes are the people who are taking the piss. Criminals, terrorist sympathisers, people who suddenly realise that they're gay or convert to Christianity when they're told to leave the country, people who have sham marriages, and who spin out one appeal after another, until they've been here so long that it would breach their human rights to deport them. They want them removed ASAP, but they sympathise with people who are here legitimately but don't have the paperwork to prove it.
OT. If anyone missed Habaneros Julian Temple's excellent documentary on Cuba it's well worth watching. In two parts both good the first slightly better. BBC socialism and JT at their best.
What helps increase exports? Better access to export markets through cuts in tariffs.
How do you incentivise cuts in tariffs? By offering to cut your own.
Unilateral tariff reductions take away the biggest carrot the government has for beneficial trade deals. It’s depressing how many Brexiteers wish to tie their hands in this way.
To increase the living standards of its people, The best trade policy to unilaterally eliminate all tariffs and non tariff barreasre to the whole would. become fantastically wealthy and inspire other nations to drop their tariffs. this is backed up by both theory and practice.
While the teary is a bit to complex to explain in in a blog post, I highly recommend 'Principle of political economy' by David Ricardo. or 'Fallacy's of Protectionism' By Fredric Bastiat.
But simply, importing rice from Italy that is 30% more expensive to produce rather than rice from Bangladesh, simple reduces the spending power of British shoppers. By having different tariffs, on different goods from different contrary's, we massively insentience special interest lobbyists to try to affect governments policy, which has bad implications for our democracy.
if in one year our imports exceed our exports then the value of the currency will more which will affect the level of imports and exports. but by having no barriers we will have more trade and thus more specialization in to what we are good at improving productivity, and therefor standard of living.
When you UK abolished all tariffs with the repeal of the corn Laws in 1848, we whet on to become an economic powerhouse, something that withed post WW1 when tariffs where gradually reimposed. since then Singapore and New Zealand have adopted almost complete removal of tariffs and both have prospered as a result.
I am not saying that trade is bad. I am saying that imports are ultimately financing by exports, and we shouldn’t take away the best tool the government has to support them.
The U.K. was not an economic powerhouse in the 19th century because we unilaterally adopted free trade, but because until 1870, we had no competition as the sole industrialised country. Both Germany and the USA, which had overtaken us by 1900, used tariffs to shield their domestic industries while freely selling into the U.K., to their long-term benefit. Precisely the same model was followed by South Korea and Japan after 1945. The U.K. is neither a city-state nor a commodity exporter, so your examples are not relevant.
Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t making a party political point Big G, but if Labour policy is no to targets and Tory policy yes to targets then what you said is perfectly fair enough.
I am saying there doesn’t seem to be an immigration policy. We are in some sort of holding position before Brexit and freedom from EU forcing immigration on us delivers the best damn immigration policy we have seen in decades.
Or maybe Brexit won’t. Maybe if there was an answer it would have been introduced by now if not long ago, when was the last time we had a working immigration policy, delivering what the voters overwhelmingly want, rather than lip service to a tough policy but delivering diddly squat? Before EEC? The Windrush scandal proves otherwise. Maybe never?
Maybe there isn’t one any government has the stomach to introduce? “How much GDP does your immigration policy cost the country Primeminister? How much less money for health, education and social care?”
Maybe in global village there is no such thing as immigration policy anymore. How do you stop companies employing whoever they want from wherever they want. Impose X on them? “Fine, thanks to internet, containerisation and global finance we can easily relocate or start up outside your X zone and you lose all kinds of advantages of having our business here”.
Speaking in the house on what she called “local targets” as she abolished them, Did Rudd scrap all targets for removing illegal immigrants? What is wrong with border force targets for removing illegal immigrants? The whole country wants targets for removing illegal immigrants.
And that is why labour are on the wrong side of the argument. But Amber has lacked an eye to detail, hence her problems now
Everyone is an illegal immigrant unless they prove that they have a right of abode. That applies to you and me as well as the Bangladeshis living 20 to a room in a bedsit. The only easy way to demonstrate your right of abode is with a UK passport. It is made deliberately difficult to prove your right of abode any other way or to obtain a UK passport if you don't already have one. The UKBA and Home Office make much less distinction between legal and illegal immigrants than you and other people realise. They are all presumed to be illegal.
Onto Windrush. Those people were illegal immigrants, despite living here essentially all their lives, because they were unable to prove their legality and Theresa May's policy made it deliberately difficult for them to do so.
Blimey, you do write some garbage.
I'm sure those affected would be surprised and shocked to be described by you as illegal immigrants, which is more than even the BNP would claim. Fortunately almost no-one else in the entire country, least of all the government, takes that view. That's because they are not: their rights were set out in the 1968 and 1971 Acts, and before that they were legal immigrants. What was missing from those Acts, and in retrospect it was a big mistake, was any straightforward documentation of their rights.
Amber Rudd, to her enormous credit, is now rapidly dealing with this issue. About time too, you might say; Home Secretaries of both parties have left it in administrative confusion for 50 years.
Sending people into exile to countries they have no connection with, who have lived here almost all their lives is so outrageous, that I do understand people would believe that this must have happened inadvertently, that the unfortunate victims got caught up in a policy that was never intended for them. But actually the policy worked exactly as it was intended to work. There is plenty of evidence that Theresa May was warned at the time that her policy would hit Commonwealth residents of the Windrush era, the effects of her policy were brought to her attention subsequently and just recently Commonwealth leaders wanted to discuss the deportations but she refused to do so. Her response every time was to stick to the policy.
If you do not prove your right of abode, you are an illegal immigrant. This is a point of law. I am incapable of an opinion on points of fact. The Windrush people were deported and denied lifesaving health treatment because they were unable to prove their right of abode and were therefore living in the UK illegally according to Theresa May's policy. The deportations and denial of healthcare were the correct applications of the policy. This matters because you won't solve the problem unless you change the policy.
You said I write garbage. I don't care if you do. But it isn't garbage. It's a scandal.
So this scandal is still in the news despite the attempts to quarantine it earlier this week. Part of the problem for governments it’s that it’s very difficult to put public attitudes towards immigration into a coherent policy. For example, according to that YouGov poll, 64% believe the government has handled this issue badly. Yet people also still believe that the onus is on individuals to prove their legality and not for the government to prove their illegal status. So the government has pursued a policy that the public wanted/wants yet the public are not happy with its outcome. What did they expect?
Also, that self described ‘ordinary’ people poll YouGov have done made me laugh.
What the public dislikes are the people who are taking the piss. Criminals, terrorist sympathisers, people who suddenly realise that they're gay or convert to Christianity when they're told to leave the country, people who have sham marriages, and who spin out one appeal after another, until they've been here so long that it would breach their human rights to deport them. They want them removed ASAP, but they sympathise with people who are here legitimately but don't have the paperwork to prove it.
So this scandal is still in the news despite the attempts to quarantine it earlier this week. Part of the problem for governments it’s that it’s very difficult to put public attitudes towards immigration into a coherent policy. For example, according to that YouGov poll, 64% believe the government has handled this issue badly. Yet people also still believe that the onus is on individuals to prove their legality and not for the government to prove their illegal status. So the government has pursued a policy that the public wanted/wants yet the public are not happy with its outcome. What did they expect?
Also, that self described ‘ordinary’ people poll YouGov have done made me laugh.
What the public dislikes are the people who are taking the piss. Criminals, terrorist sympathisers, people who suddenly realise that they're gay or convert to Christianity when they're told to leave the country, people who have sham marriages, and who spin out one appeal after another, until they've been here so long that it would breach their human rights to deport them. They want them removed ASAP, but they sympathise with people who are here legitimately but don't have the paperwork to prove it.
Everyone is an illegal immigrant unless they prove that they have a right of abode. That applies to you and me as well as the Bangladeshis living 20 to a room in a bedsit. The only easy way to demonstrate your right of abode is with a UK passport. It is made deliberately difficult to prove your right of abode any other way or to obtain a UK passport if you don't already have one. The UKBA and Home Office make much less distinction between legal and illegal immigrants than you and other people realise. They are all presumed to be illegal.
Onto Windrush. Those people were illegal immigrants, despite living here essentially all their lives, because they were unable to prove their legality and Theresa May's policy made it deliberately difficult for them to do so.
Blimey, you do write some garbage.
I'm sure those affected would be surprised and shocked to be described by you as illegal immigrants, which is more than even the BNP would claim. Fortunately almost no-one else in the entire country, least of all the government, takes that view. That's because they are not: their rights were set out in the 1968 and 1971 Acts, and before that they were legal immigrants. What was missing from those Acts, and in retrospect it was a big mistake, was any straightforward documentation of their rights.
Amber Rudd, to her enormous credit, is now rapidly dealing with this issue. About time too, you might say; Home Secretaries of both parties have left it in administrative confusion for 50 years.
Yep,The next tory leader must come from the backbenches,Theresa's history baggage beginning to weigh her down,from police cuts,changing stop and search and now immigration.
The new leader must be new and clean with no government baggage.
Yep,The next tory leader must come from the backbenches,Theresa's history baggage beginning to weigh her down,from police cuts,changing stop and search and now immigration.
The new leader must be new and clean with no government baggage.
I agree and have been making that point for months
Speaking in the house on what she called “local targets” as she abolished them, Did Rudd scrap all targets for removing illegal immigrants? What is wrong with border force targets for removing illegal immigrants? The whole country wants targets for removing illegal immigrants.
We - well the vast majority of people - want a system where there is as close as possible to zero illegal immigration.
The issue with targets is that they tend to get pushed down, and down, and down. And suddenly a low level civil servant is evaluating whether Wilbur T Smith is an illegal immigrant or not, and she's thinking "I've got to find five people to deport this week, and it's Tuesday and I haven't found one yet."
You mean, too concerned with policy and strategy and sometimes loses sight of individuals? We need a Home Secretary to change the policy to that then?
Speaking in the house on what she called “local targets” as she abolished them, Did Rudd scrap all targets for removing illegal immigrants? What is wrong with border force targets for removing illegal immigrants? The whole country wants targets for removing illegal immigrants.
We - well the vast majority of people - want a system where there is as close as possible to zero illegal immigration.
The issue with targets is that they tend to get pushed down, and down, and down. And suddenly a low level civil servant is evaluating whether Wilbur T Smith is an illegal immigrant or not, and she's thinking "I've got to find five people to deport this week, and it's Tuesday and I haven't found one yet."
You mean, too concerned with policy and strategy and sometimes loses sight of individuals? We need a Home Secretary to change the policy to that then?
Would that actually deport anybody though?
How many Windrush generation have actually been deported.
Sky reporting on someone who went back to the Carribean in 1983 and has not been allowed back since and is seeking full citizenship. Who is to blame for that - that is 34 years ago
Speaking in the house on what she called “local targets” as she abolished them, Did Rudd scrap all targets for removing illegal immigrants? What is wrong with border force targets for removing illegal immigrants? The whole country wants targets for removing illegal immigrants.
We - well the vast majority of people - want a system where there is as close as possible to zero illegal immigration.
The issue with targets is that they tend to get pushed down, and down, and down. And suddenly a low level civil servant is evaluating whether Wilbur T Smith is an illegal immigrant or not, and she's thinking "I've got to find five people to deport this week, and it's Tuesday and I haven't found one yet."
You mean, too concerned with policy and strategy and sometimes loses sight of individuals? We need a Home Secretary to change the policy to that then?
Would that actually deport anybody though?
How many Windrush generation have actually been deported.
Sky reporting on someone who went back to the Carribean in 1983 and has not been allowed back since and is seeking full citizenship. Who is to blame for that - that is 34 years ago
Mr Northwales, why are you so against deportations? Illegal immigration puts pressure on legal immigration and gives all immigration a bad name.
Speaking in the house on what she called “local targets” as she abolished them, Did Rudd scrap all targets for removing illegal immigrants? What is wrong with border force targets for removing illegal immigrants? The whole country wants targets for removing illegal immigrants.
We - well the vast majority of people - want a system where there is as close as possible to zero illegal immigration.
The issue with targets is that they tend to get pushed down, and down, and down. And suddenly a low level civil servant is evaluating whether Wilbur T Smith is an illegal immigrant or not, and she's thinking "I've got to find five people to deport this week, and it's Tuesday and I haven't found one yet."
You mean, too concerned with policy and strategy and sometimes loses sight of individuals? We need a Home Secretary to change the policy to that then?
Would that actually deport anybody though?
How many Windrush generation have actually been deported.
Sky reporting on someone who went back to the Carribean in 1983 and has not been allowed back since and is seeking full citizenship. Who is to blame for that - that is 34 years ago
Mr Northwales, why are you so against deportations? Illegal immigration puts pressure on legal immigration and gives all immigration a bad name.
My question was how many of the Windrush generation have been deported and to date no one has produced a figure which seems it may be small.
However, I am 100% in favour of illegal immigrants deportation and I am not sure what led you to believe I was against
Serious question. Why on earth would the BBC sack Willie Thorne as a snooker commentator and retain John Virgo, who is not merely incredibly tedious and not very good at analysing a match but afflicted with verbal diarrhoea and increasingly it seeems a form of aphasia?
Serious question. Why on earth would the BBC sack Willie Thorne as a snooker commentator and retain John Virgo, who is not merely incredibly tedious and not very good at analysing a match but afflicted with verbal diarrhoea and increasingly it seeems a form of aphasia?
It makes no sense on any level whatsoever.
Why aren't the BBC showing Snooker on one of their main channels tonight?
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
The one piece of that I would dispute is the length of Russia's oil reserves. If the Russian government was to throw open the country to foreign investment and technology, you'd have companies like EOG Resources finding prodigious amounts of tight oil.
I think the truth is that North Korea's nuclear ambitions have been dealt a major blow by the collapse of their testing facility. With no ability to willy wave, and an actively hostile USA, the North Koreans have decided this is probably a good time to deal.
A London coroner has been ordered by the High Court to change her "cab-rank" queuing policy for handling burials after it was ruled "unlawful".
Senior coroner Mary Hassell had said she would not fast-track inquests based on religion.
Under Jewish and Islamic law, bodies must be buried on the day of death or as soon as possible afterwards.
Her jurisdiction covers north London which is home to large communities of orthodox Jews and Muslims.
Lord Justice Singh said the policy set by Ms Hassell was discriminatory and must be quashed.
Custom and laws and culture and religions form around practicalities, such as burying a body before it starts attracting flies and maggots. Is it depressing we still tolerate such custom long after the practicalities are no longer required, or depressing we grow less tolerant and more questioning of traditions, such as fast tracking burial and genital mutilation?
Serious question. Why on earth would the BBC sack Willie Thorne as a snooker commentator and retain John Virgo, who is not merely incredibly tedious and not very good at analysing a match but afflicted with verbal diarrhoea and increasingly it seeems a form of aphasia?
It makes no sense on any level whatsoever.
Why aren't the BBC showing Snooker on one of their main channels tonight?
BEcause they believe most people will watch it on the Net if they are that keen?
Obviously they couldn't leave such cutting edge, intellectual and cultured fare as The Button off air...
A London coroner has been ordered by the High Court to change her "cab-rank" queuing policy for handling burials after it was ruled "unlawful".
Senior coroner Mary Hassell had said she would not fast-track inquests based on religion.
Under Jewish and Islamic law, bodies must be buried on the day of death or as soon as possible afterwards.
Her jurisdiction covers north London which is home to large communities of orthodox Jews and Muslims.
Lord Justice Singh said the policy set by Ms Hassell was discriminatory and must be quashed.
Custom and laws and culture and religions form around practicalities, such as burying a body before it starts attracting flies and maggots. Is it depressing we still tolerate such custom long after the practicalities are no longer required, or depressing we grow less tolerant and more questioning of traditions, such as fast tracking burial and genital mutilation?
Very much the former. Where traditions/customs can be accommodated, then fine. I don't want to antagonise people unnecessarily. But it's not right that certain groups of people get priority treatment because of their religion.
Serious question. Why on earth would the BBC sack Willie Thorne as a snooker commentator and retain John Virgo, who is not merely incredibly tedious and not very good at analysing a match but afflicted with verbal diarrhoea and increasingly it seeems a form of aphasia?
It makes no sense on any level whatsoever.
I used to like John Virgo on the game show "Big Break" - but that was in my younger days
Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t making a party political point Big G, but if Labour policy is no to targets and Tory policy yes to targets then what you said is perfectly fair enough.
I am saying there doesn’t seem to be an immigration policy. We are in some sort of holding position before Brexit and freedom from EU forcing immigration on us delivers the best damn immigration policy we have seen in decades.
Or maybe Brexit won’t. Maybe if there was an answer it would have been introduced by now if not long ago, when was the last time we had a working immigration policy, delivering what the voters overwhelmingly want, rather than lip service to a tough policy but delivering diddly squat? Before EEC? The Windrush scandal proves otherwise. Maybe never?
Maybe there isn’t one any government has the stomach to introduce? “How much GDP does your immigration policy cost the country Primeminister? How much less money for health, education and social care?”
Maybe in global village there is no such thing as immigration policy anymore. How do you stop companies employing whoever they want from wherever they want. Impose X on them? “Fine, thanks to internet, containerisation and global finance we can easily relocate or start up outside your X zone and you lose all kinds of advantages of having our business here”.
Speaking in the house on what she called “local targets” as she abolished them, Did Rudd scrap all targets for removing illegal immigrants? What is wrong with border force targets for removing illegal immigrants? The whole country wants targets for removing illegal immigrants.
And that is why labour are on the wrong side of the argument. But Amber has lacked an eye to detail, hence her problems now
If you gave most of the country the choice between 1% income growth and limited immigration or 2% income growth and open borders, they would choose the former. For all the talk of a "global village", people in London don't know most of their neighbours, few look out for the little old lady down the street, and people don't drop off their kids with the family over the road when they run out for an hour. Most people in the UK don't want to replicate that lack of community locally.
The one piece of that I would dispute is the length of Russia's oil reserves. If the Russian government was to throw open the country to foreign investment and technology, you'd have companies like EOG Resources finding prodigious amounts of tight oil.
Of course it occurs to me that if Amber Rudd came out firing on all cylinders againsl labour's stance on immigration and hatred of targets it could just chime with the public and keep her in post
A London coroner has been ordered by the High Court to change her "cab-rank" queuing policy for handling burials after it was ruled "unlawful".
Senior coroner Mary Hassell had said she would not fast-track inquests based on religion.
Under Jewish and Islamic law, bodies must be buried on the day of death or as soon as possible afterwards.
Her jurisdiction covers north London which is home to large communities of orthodox Jews and Muslims.
Lord Justice Singh said the policy set by Ms Hassell was discriminatory and must be quashed.
Custom and laws and culture and religions form around practicalities, such as burying a body before it starts attracting flies and maggots. Is it depressing we still tolerate such custom long after the practicalities are no longer required, or depressing we grow less tolerant and more questioning of traditions, such as fast tracking burial and genital mutilation?
Very much the former. Where traditions/customs can be accommodated, then fine. I don't want to antagonise people unnecessarily. But it's not right that certain groups of people get priority treatment because of their religion.
But if you went down for a long stretch in prison, you would make out you were an Islamic convert to get get the better food wouldn’t you? Food or better food, you would be practical about it?
If I were @williamglenn , I would suggest that Russia is the last European power to try and fail to be a superpower in its own right. Germany failed catastrophically in 1945, and Britain and France gave up after Suez.
Like Britain in the 1950s, Russian does not have the economic strength to maintain its current military establishment. Its status as an autocracy buys some insulation from the consequences of choosing guns over butter, but it isn’t watertight, and it won’t last forever.
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
The one piece of that I would dispute is the length of Russia's oil reserves. If the Russian government was to throw open the country to foreign investment and technology, you'd have companies like EOG Resources finding prodigious amounts of tight oil.
Tight oil -expensive to extract ?
It's a learning process; it's unlikely the US would have made the strides it did in extracting oil from tight rock formations had the oil price not spiked to $150/barrel.
At that point, it became worth wondering if you could extract oil economically by using multi-stage fracturing, and experimenting with using carbon ceramics balls rather than sand in the fraccing fluids.
Across the US, there were hundreds - maybe thousands - of place where core samples shows hydrocarbons, but where the oil wouldn't run. We now know how to make the oil flow, and the cost of an average barrel of tight oil has probably fallen from $200 (uneconomic but we're learning) to $20.
Russia - I'm sure - has thousands of prospective sites. But the tax situation and the fact that you might get your oil wells taken away from you, conspire to prevent people from wanting to make that investment.
If I were @williamglenn , I would suggest that Russia is the last European power to try and fail to be a superpower in its own right. Germany failed catastrophically in 1945, and Britain and France gave up after Suez.
Like Britain in the 1950s, Russian does not have the economic strength to maintain its current military establishment. Its status as an autocracy buys some insulation from the consequences of choosing guns over butter, but it isn’t watertight, and it won’t last forever.
It will last until the next great commodity downcycle, when oil trades sub $35 for three or more years.
Of course it occurs to me that if Amber Rudd came out firing on all cylinders againsl labour's stance on immigration and hatred of targets it could just chime with the public and keep her in post
“I come to praise the targets, I denied, cancelled and buried Last week.”
Were we not getting somewhere around consensus the targets focus on strategy and process too much and lose sight of the individual? And that is going to be the change for the better?
If she is determined to stay and repeats her tweets with the apology labour can create a huge stir but cannot displace her unless she decides to resign or is sacked. She has not broken the Ministerial code
The one piece of that I would dispute is the length of Russia's oil reserves. If the Russian government was to throw open the country to foreign investment and technology, you'd have companies like EOG Resources finding prodigious amounts of tight oil.
Tight oil -expensive to extract ?
It's a learning process; it's unlikely the US would have made the strides it did in extracting oil from tight rock formations had the oil price not spiked to $150/barrel.
At that point, it became worth wondering if you could extract oil economically by using multi-stage fracturing, and experimenting with using carbon ceramics balls rather than sand in the fraccing fluids.
Across the US, there were hundreds - maybe thousands - of place where core samples shows hydrocarbons, but where the oil wouldn't run. We now know how to make the oil flow, and the cost of an average barrel of tight oil has probably fallen from $200 (uneconomic but we're learning) to $20.
Russia - I'm sure - has thousands of prospective sites. But the tax situation and the fact that you might get your oil wells taken away from you, conspire to prevent people from wanting to make that investment.
Looks to me like Ricardo's extensive and intensive margins provide an analytical device to model the industry.
Of course it occurs to me that if Amber Rudd came out firing on all cylinders againsl labour's stance on immigration and hatred of targets it could just chime with the public and keep her in post
“I come to praise the targets, I denied, cancelled and buried Last week.”
Were we not getting somewhere around consensus the targets focus on strategy and process too much and lose sight of the individual? And that is going to be the change for the better?
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
One other thing on Russia. We focus on oil because it is the biggest piece of the Russian export pie, but we need to remember that the country is dependent on a host of other commodity exports: gas, coal, aluminium, copper, diamonds, wheat, and gold to name just a few.
The prices for all of these went through the roof between 2000 and 2014. The export windfall to the Russian economy was staggering.
What's staggering is how, given this windfall, it didn't outperform many of its resource poor satellites.
The one piece of that I would dispute is the length of Russia's oil reserves. If the Russian government was to throw open the country to foreign investment and technology, you'd have companies like EOG Resources finding prodigious amounts of tight oil.
Tight oil -expensive to extract ?
It's a learning process; it's unlikely the US would have made the strides it did in extracting oil from tight rock formations had the oil price not spiked to $150/barrel.
At that point, it became worth wondering if you could extract oil economically by using multi-stage fracturing, and experimenting with using carbon ceramics balls rather than sand in the fraccing fluids.
Across the US, there were hundreds - maybe thousands - of place where core samples shows hydrocarbons, but where the oil wouldn't run. We now know how to make the oil flow, and the cost of an average barrel of tight oil has probably fallen from $200 (uneconomic but we're learning) to $20.
Russia - I'm sure - has thousands of prospective sites. But the tax situation and the fact that you might get your oil wells taken away from you, conspire to prevent people from wanting to make that investment.
I am always surprised fracking for oil and gas has not been embraced by the UK Government and population. It would be a major boon to the economy and would positively impact the UK economy in terms of trade. People have double standards on fracking compared to say coal miners. Fracking is opposed on environmental grounds in the vicinity of the drill sites. Coal mining on the other hand can massively impact the local environment, contribute to climate change and screw the miners health sending them to an early grave but that seems to be alright. Personally, if they fracked for oil/gas in my community I would not be worried about it as long as it was not noisy. I would just think of the good to the UK economy from the extra revenue derived from the sales process.
Of course it occurs to me that if Amber Rudd came out firing on all cylinders againsl labour's stance on immigration and hatred of targets it could just chime with the public and keep her in post
“I come to praise the targets, I denied, cancelled and buried Last week.”
Were we not getting somewhere around consensus the targets focus on strategy and process too much and lose sight of the individual? And that is going to be the change for the better?
The problem for Amber Rudd isn't Windrush. Most people would argue the way successive Governments have treated these people has been appalling but Rudd and May seem determined to put things right and I can't fault them for that.
The story has moved on to the setting of targets for the "enforced return" of migrants. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of such a policy and I don't have a problem with a Government trying to remove those who are here illegally, Rudd denied such a policy existed and it now "appears" that was an error as there is growing evidence she did know about a target and progress toward meeting that target.
She has at worst misled Parliament and that is a resigning offence. I'm more than happy to concede it was an error on her part but the fact remains the Commons has been misled and that's simply something a Minister cannot do without losing all credibility and authority.
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Yes, a sub-type of the 'I was a moron' defence, which (they hope) is not as self defeating as the full blooded version.
Surely the only reason she can be remaining in place is because it could blow back on May even more if she went? Even as averse to sacking as May might be, particularly as weak as her position is, this whole thing does feel like a PM 'asks minister to resign' kind of situation.
I am always surprised fracking for oil and gas has not been embraced by the UK Government and population. It would be a major boon to the economy and would positively impact the UK economy in terms of trade. People have double standards on fracking compared to say coal miners. Fracking is opposed on environmental grounds in the vicinity of the drill sites. Coal mining on the other hand can massively impact the local environment, contribute to climate change and screw the miners health sending them to an early grave but that seems to be alright. Personally, if they fracked for oil/gas in my community I would not be worried about it as long as it was not noisy. I would just think of the good to the UK economy from the extra revenue derived from the sales process.
The problem the UK has is that it's a densely populated country.
If you go to Texas, a guy with a ranch sells you a portion of the mineral rights, and then they drive everything in. Some of these ranches are the size of English towns. Finding space for the trucks, and for a giant (temporary) pond for the wastewater is easy. There's also a massive amount of oil collecting equipment already in place, and so getting your new oil into the pipeline network is easy.
In the UK, a 1,000 foot lateral well might cross a dozen property lines, and that's before we start thinking of how you get your oil or gas to market.
My personal view is that we won't see meaningful investments in tight oil and gas in the UK unless the oil price is seen as sustainably over $100-120.
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Yep. Even I thought that the story would be out of the news after Monday - that it’s kept on running has even shocked me, and tells me there may well be more steam in it yet.
Of course it occurs to me that if Amber Rudd came out firing on all cylinders againsl labour's stance on immigration and hatred of targets it could just chime with the public and keep her in post
“I come to praise the targets, I denied, cancelled and buried Last week.”
Were we not getting somewhere around consensus the targets focus on strategy and process too much and lose sight of the individual? And that is going to be the change for the better?
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Agreed Labour in danger of overplaying their hand.
At the end of the day being tough on immigration will be popular IMO
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Yes, but the news cycle moving on will be fairly slow, as it has been so far, because clear, admitted incompetence is keeping it running. Similar to how some of Corbyn's people dismissing complaints of anti-semitism in the party as smears were undermined by Corbyn's own position, meaning the story could not be moved on right away, this story, already a juicy one, cannot be played by the Tories as being amplified by a partisan opposition very much - because even though they surely are, as the Tories make use of any anti-Corbyn story, they cannot be seen to look like they are dismissing it when they have to admit incompetence.
Without the bungling that has gone on it is possible things would have died down in the short term at least (no doubt sporadic human interest stories would come from time to time), but the fires are still being stoked. It will last awhile yet.
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Agreed Labour in danger of overplaying their hand.
At the end of the day being tough on immigration will be popular IMO
Evening BJO - hope you and your good lady are well
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Yes, but the news cycle moving on will be fairly slow, as it has been so far, because clear, admitted incompetence is keeping it running. Similar to how some of Corbyn's people dismissing complaints of anti-semitism in the party as smears were undermined by Corbyn's own position, meaning the story could not be moved on right away, this story, already a juicy one, cannot be played by the Tories as being amplified by a partisan opposition very much - because even though they surely are, as the Tories make use of any anti-Corbyn story, they cannot be seen to look like they are dismissing it when they have to admit incompetence.
Without the bungling that has gone on it is possible things would have died down in the short term at least (no doubt sporadic human interest stories would come from time to time), but the fires are still being stoked. It will last awhile yet.
I feel like he's been threatening to quit for the last 2 years. He's this government's Vince Cable. Just f*cking do it already Davis, or stop whinging about it.
Of course it occurs to me that if Amber Rudd came out firing on all cylinders againsl labour's stance on immigration and hatred of targets it could just chime with the public and keep her in post
“I come to praise the targets, I denied, cancelled and buried Last week.”
Were we not getting somewhere around consensus the targets focus on strategy and process too much and lose sight of the individual? And that is going to be the change for the better?
The targets are very popular in the electorate
That may be true. But do deportation targets deliver a policy humane and fair, or something so focussed on process it loses sight of the individual, as the Home Secretary has been saying to you all week is the change she Regrets not having made already? Or am I mistaken on where her mind now is?
The problem for Amber Rudd isn't Windrush. Most people would argue the way successive Governments have treated these people has been appalling but Rudd and May seem determined to put things right and I can't fault them for that.
The story has moved on to the setting of targets for the "enforced return" of migrants. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of such a policy and I don't have a problem with a Government trying to remove those who are here illegally, Rudd denied such a policy existed and it now "appears" that was an error as there is growing evidence she did know about a target and progress toward meeting that target.
She has at worst misled Parliament and that is a resigning offence. I'm more than happy to concede it was an error on her part but the fact remains the Commons has been misled and that's simply something a Minister cannot do without losing all credibility and authority.
I think this is a sensible view on things.
In a sheer practical look at things clearly the government was attempting to address the problem, even if the problem was of their own creation, even if parts of the actions some complain about are reasonable or popular (if done right), there is still now a problem that the attempt does not seem to be going well, and a great big blunder from Rudd is now making things even worse.
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Agreed Labour in danger of overplaying their hand.
At the end of the day being tough on immigration will be popular IMO
They have forgotten the lessons of last year's election. Corbyn massively gains ground when he talks about austerity and economics. He doesn't do well when he talks about "cultural" issues, like immigration.
That doesn't mean necessarily that he has to change his stances on those issues, but he shouldn't be making them his main focus, especially in the run-up to big elections.
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Agreed Labour in danger of overplaying their hand.
At the end of the day being tough on immigration will be popular IMO
Being tough on immigration will always be a popular position. Labour however are never going to successfully outflank the Right on immigration. They tried to do that in 2015, they even did those ‘control immigration’ cups - a fat lot of good it did them then. Labour’s best bet is an attempt to shift the main issues the GE is fought on next time onto issues that are ideal for them and Corbyn, such as austerity and inter generational unfairness.
@Danny565 it’s been one of the main stories in the news, so it would be hard (and wrong) for Labour to ignore it if they are going to actually hold the government to account as an opposition. Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it isn’t popular or won’t pay massive electoral dividends. It was either Windrush for Labour, or continuing to focus Syria, which is also an area of weakness Labour.
Windrush for the vast majority is a nothing story, hence limited to no impact on opinions. Labour have massively cocked up trying to add illegal immigration to the story to try and distract from their anti semetic problem.
I think Windrush is a non story. It is regrettable that people have been treated in such a non-human way but Governments of all stripes target groups of the population for allsorts of unpleasant treatment. Quite often from experience of observing these things, the hue and cry cause a U-turn on the issue and it then disappears. I doubt it will change many votes from Tory to Labour and paradoxically the Labour parties twisted views on anti-Semitism and immigration may well be a lose/lose. I don't think Labour is really in a position to capitalise from Windrush due to the beginning of the problems starting on their watch.
I think Windrush will run for a while yet. There are plenty of human interest stories, and the subjects of these know that publicity is their best chance of getting leave to remain.
Not sure - the news cycle will move on as will the public
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Yes, but the news cycle moving on will be fairly slow, as it has been so far, because clear, admitted incompetence is keeping it running. Similar to how some of Corbyn's people dismissing complaints of anti-semitism in the party as smears were undermined by Corbyn's own position, meaning the story could not be moved on right away, this story, already a juicy one, cannot be played by the Tories as being amplified by a partisan opposition very much - because even though they surely are, as the Tories make use of any anti-Corbyn story, they cannot be seen to look like they are dismissing it when they have to admit incompetence.
Without the bungling that has gone on it is possible things would have died down in the short term at least (no doubt sporadic human interest stories would come from time to time), but the fires are still being stoked. It will last awhile yet.
The story doesn't hurt the Conservatives, so it makes no difference if it's in the news. People feel sorry for the Windrush immigrants, but are reassured that the government is tough on illegal immigration.
Comments
I'm sure those affected would be surprised and shocked to be described by you as illegal immigrants, which is more than even the BNP would claim. Fortunately almost no-one else in the entire country, least of all the government, takes that view. That's because they are not: their rights were set out in the 1968 and 1971 Acts, and before that they were legal immigrants. What was missing from those Acts, and in retrospect it was a big mistake, was any straightforward documentation of their rights.
Amber Rudd, to her enormous credit, is now rapidly dealing with this issue. About time too, you might say; Home Secretaries of both parties have left it in administrative confusion for 50 years.
He is already on a sticky wicket as he is also a Chelsea fan.....
A convent beckons for Miss Scrap at this rate.
Also, that self described ‘ordinary’ people poll YouGov have done made me laugh.
On the wider issue, New Zealand has extremely low tariffs with no tariffs on 85% of imported goods. The maximum tariffs on the rest of the imported goods is 5%. That is the sort of thing we should be emulating as a start.
1. The Home Office should crack down on illegal immigrants, in particular by not paying them benefits and by making it hard for them to work illegally.
2. The Home Office should also exercise common sense in accepting evidence of entitlement for the 'Windrush' generation, for example by simply accepting National Insurance records (which the government already has) as clear and unambiguous evidence. The problem seems largely to have been that they've been asking for ridiculous amounts of documentary proof.
Experience suggests that you put up with it and offer wine. Assuming they're old enough.
She is abolishing targets that as recently as Wednesday she said didnt exist.
That was not the problem. That is the intention. Very few of these people had the money or the confidence to fight the state.
They were the "low hanging fruit".
You are absolutely right. Anyone who could provide [ by themselves or through others ] any document which proved they were in the UK before 1973 should automatically be accepted.
Personally , I would make it easier. Just accept anyone over the age of 45 with some proof of stay in this country, say, more than 10 years. Yes, some "illegals" will get through. How many ? And, what about the cost of verification ? Thousands of hours of tedious work.
Wouldn’t it be fun if he replaced her...
To increase the living standards of its people, The best trade policy to unilaterally eliminate all tariffs and non tariff barreasre to the whole would. become fantastically wealthy and inspire other nations to drop their tariffs. this is backed up by both theory and practice.
While the teary is a bit to complex to explain in in a blog post, I highly recommend 'Principle of political economy' by David Ricardo. or 'Fallacy's of Protectionism' By Fredric Bastiat.
But simply, importing rice from Italy that is 30% more expensive to produce rather than rice from Bangladesh, simple reduces the spending power of British shoppers. By having different tariffs, on different goods from different contrary's, we massively insentience special interest lobbyists to try to affect governments policy, which has bad implications for our democracy.
if in one year our imports exceed our exports then the value of the currency will more which will affect the level of imports and exports. but by having no barriers we will have more trade and thus more specialization in to what we are good at improving productivity, and therefor standard of living.
When you UK abolished all tariffs with the repeal of the corn Laws in 1848, we whet on to become an economic powerhouse, something that withed post WW1 when tariffs where gradually reimposed. since then Singapore and New Zealand have adopted almost complete removal of tariffs and both have prospered as a result.
The U.K. was not an economic powerhouse in the 19th century because we unilaterally adopted free trade, but because until 1870, we had no competition as the sole industrialised country. Both Germany and the USA, which had overtaken us by 1900, used tariffs to shield their domestic industries while freely selling into the U.K., to their long-term benefit. Precisely the same model was followed by South Korea and Japan after 1945. The U.K. is neither a city-state nor a commodity exporter, so your examples are not relevant.
Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t making a party political point Big G, but if Labour policy is no to targets and Tory policy yes to targets then what you said is perfectly fair enough.
I am saying there doesn’t seem to be an immigration policy. We are in some sort of holding position before Brexit and freedom from EU forcing immigration on us delivers the best damn immigration policy we have seen in decades.
Or maybe Brexit won’t. Maybe if there was an answer it would have been introduced by now if not long ago, when was the last time we had a working immigration policy, delivering what the voters overwhelmingly want, rather than lip service to a tough policy but delivering diddly squat? Before EEC? The Windrush scandal proves otherwise. Maybe never?
Maybe there isn’t one any government has the stomach to introduce? “How much GDP does your immigration policy cost the country Primeminister? How much less money for health, education and social care?”
Maybe in global village there is no such thing as immigration policy anymore. How do you stop companies employing whoever they want from wherever they want. Impose X on them? “Fine, thanks to internet, containerisation and global finance we can easily relocate or start up outside your X zone and you lose all kinds of advantages of having our business here”.
If you do not prove your right of abode, you are an illegal immigrant. This is a point of law. I am incapable of an opinion on points of fact. The Windrush people were deported and denied lifesaving health treatment because they were unable to prove their right of abode and were therefore living in the UK illegally according to Theresa May's policy. The deportations and denial of healthcare were the correct applications of the policy. This matters because you won't solve the problem unless you change the policy.
You said I write garbage. I don't care if you do. But it isn't garbage. It's a scandal.
The new leader must be new and clean with no government baggage.
Would that actually deport anybody though?
Sky reporting on someone who went back to the Carribean in 1983 and has not been allowed back since and is seeking full citizenship. Who is to blame for that - that is 34 years ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43922000
A London coroner has been ordered by the High Court to change her "cab-rank" queuing policy for handling burials after it was ruled "unlawful".
Senior coroner Mary Hassell had said she would not fast-track inquests based on religion.
Under Jewish and Islamic law, bodies must be buried on the day of death or as soon as possible afterwards.
Her jurisdiction covers north London which is home to large communities of orthodox Jews and Muslims.
Lord Justice Singh said the policy set by Ms Hassell was discriminatory and must be quashed.
Mr Northwales, why are you so against deportations? Illegal immigration puts pressure on legal immigration and gives all immigration a bad name.
The 10 graphs that explain Vladimir Putin’s Russia by Owen Matthews
However, I am 100% in favour of illegal immigrants deportation and I am not sure what led you to believe I was against
It makes no sense on any level whatsoever.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/can-kim-jong-un-be-trusted/
Obviously they couldn't leave such cutting edge, intellectual and cultured fare as The Button off air...
- No, I Amber Rudd!
- I Amber Rudd!
If I were @williamglenn , I would suggest that Russia is the last European power to try and fail to be a superpower in its own right. Germany failed catastrophically in 1945, and Britain and France gave up after Suez.
Like Britain in the 1950s, Russian does not have the economic strength to maintain its current military establishment. Its status as an autocracy buys some insulation from the consequences of choosing guns over butter, but it isn’t watertight, and it won’t last forever.
ah - the I saw nothing defence
At that point, it became worth wondering if you could extract oil economically by using multi-stage fracturing, and experimenting with using carbon ceramics balls rather than sand in the fraccing fluids.
Across the US, there were hundreds - maybe thousands - of place where core samples shows hydrocarbons, but where the oil wouldn't run. We now know how to make the oil flow, and the cost of an average barrel of tight oil has probably fallen from $200 (uneconomic but we're learning) to $20.
Russia - I'm sure - has thousands of prospective sites. But the tax situation and the fact that you might get your oil wells taken away from you, conspire to prevent people from wanting to make that investment.
Were we not getting somewhere around consensus the targets focus on strategy and process too much and lose sight of the individual? And that is going to be the change for the better?
https://twitter.com/AmberRuddHR/status/989968657102057474
The prices for all of these went through the roof between 2000 and 2014. The export windfall to the Russian economy was staggering.
What's staggering is how, given this windfall, it didn't outperform many of its resource poor satellites.
The story has moved on to the setting of targets for the "enforced return" of migrants. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of such a policy and I don't have a problem with a Government trying to remove those who are here illegally, Rudd denied such a policy existed and it now "appears" that was an error as there is growing evidence she did know about a target and progress toward meeting that target.
She has at worst misled Parliament and that is a resigning offence. I'm more than happy to concede it was an error on her part but the fact remains the Commons has been misled and that's simply something a Minister cannot do without losing all credibility and authority.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/989971699130085376
Mondays statement by Rudd will be an angry knockabout but the tories will attack labour on being soft on immigration and targets.
Surely the only reason she can be remaining in place is because it could blow back on May even more if she went? Even as averse to sacking as May might be, particularly as weak as her position is, this whole thing does feel like a PM 'asks minister to resign' kind of situation.
If you go to Texas, a guy with a ranch sells you a portion of the mineral rights, and then they drive everything in. Some of these ranches are the size of English towns. Finding space for the trucks, and for a giant (temporary) pond for the wastewater is easy. There's also a massive amount of oil collecting equipment already in place, and so getting your new oil into the pipeline network is easy.
In the UK, a 1,000 foot lateral well might cross a dozen property lines, and that's before we start thinking of how you get your oil or gas to market.
My personal view is that we won't see meaningful investments in tight oil and gas in the UK unless the oil price is seen as sustainably over $100-120.
At the end of the day being tough on immigration will be popular IMO
Without the bungling that has gone on it is possible things would have died down in the short term at least (no doubt sporadic human interest stories would come from time to time), but the fires are still being stoked. It will last awhile yet.
In a sheer practical look at things clearly the government was attempting to address the problem, even if the problem was of their own creation, even if parts of the actions some complain about are reasonable or popular (if done right), there is still now a problem that the attempt does not seem to be going well, and a great big blunder from Rudd is now making things even worse.
That doesn't mean necessarily that he has to change his stances on those issues, but he shouldn't be making them his main focus, especially in the run-up to big elections.
@Danny565 it’s been one of the main stories in the news, so it would be hard (and wrong) for Labour to ignore it if they are going to actually hold the government to account as an opposition. Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it isn’t popular or won’t pay massive electoral dividends. It was either Windrush for Labour, or continuing to focus Syria, which is also an area of weakness Labour.
Bullying from Guido, who’d have thought It?