politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If TMay and Corbyn are still there at the next election then W

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Well we need it clarifying when the decision was taken and when the destruction began because there is all kinds of confusion on this issue today.

Only in your mind.

quite.

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.?

They now have the answer to that.

Pulpstar said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also looks like the Telegraph and Andrew Pierce thought it was by Labour as well:

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/986562570487255040

https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/986571523711471618

Someone calling themself "Tory boy" over twitter might just have an agenda... and is it really May's fault that the Telegraph weren't listening properly and have subsequently produced some slightly inaccurate journalism ?

She said "under" and other people heard "by".

If anything a clever bit of speaking that.

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

AlastairMeeks said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

CarlottaVance said:

felix said:

AlastairMeeks said:

A French opinion poll which probably won't otherwise get any coverage on pb:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/986562330677923840

Probably in response to his proposed measures to remove child migrants from France with draconian new laws.

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/986496642944815104?s=20

Which Meeks is studiously ignoring.

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.

Excellent thoughful posts from Alastair.

We need thought provoking and stimulating articles like these. We don't have to agree with everything to appreciate them.

The Home Office kept the landing documents for 60 years. Why did they have to destroy them after storing them for so long?

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

Corbyn, TMay and dogging all in the same headline

what is OGH thinking ?

Alanbrooke said:

Corbyn, TMay and dogging all in the same headline

what is OGH thinking ?

I'm thinking it was written by TSE......

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/986583417847508992?s=21

As expected. More Russian BS that the usual suspects chose to believe.

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.?

They now have the answer to that.

Well they don’t, because there’s confusion over whether the decision was taken in 2010 or 2009 for start. Hodges has also claimed the destruction began in 2009 as well. That’s a new claim to me. Very Rigby is still standing by her claim with some new tweets and Kevin Schofield is claiming that they were destroyed in 2010.

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/986587985524256768

Look, you are desperate to pin the blame on the Tories, and so you are having difficulty getting your head around the fact that, if any party was to blame, it has to be Labour, using Labour's own argument. That's all there is to it; everyone else has understood all that, and in any case realises that this would have been a decision taken by middling officials in the UKBA.

Floater said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/GnasherJew/status/986590153891307520

Nope - no problem at all

It is not only anti-Jewish, it is this belief that the secret Jewish cabal control the whole world...it is deeply deeply worrying.

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.?

They now have the answer to that.

Well they don’t, because there’s confusion over whether the decision was taken in 2010 or 2009 for start. Hodges has also claimed the destruction began in 2009 as well. That’s a new claim to me. Very Rigby is still standing by her claim with some new tweets and Kevin Schofield is claiming that they were destroyed in 2010.

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/986587985524256768

Look, you are desperate to pin the blame on the Tories, and so you are having difficulty getting your head around the fact that, if any party was to blame, it has to be Labour, using Labour's own argument. That's all there is to it; everyone else has understood all that, and in any case realises that this would have been a decision taken by middling officials in the UKBA.

It’s hilarous how desperate some posters are to pin this on the Tories and paint them as racist.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

Jezza's case completely in tatters.

Did they not check this in his back office?

Probably not on speaking terms with the relevant ministers at the time.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/986566153941106688?s=20

The relevant Home Secretaries in 2009 were Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/986576473489334274

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.

When did they actually got thrown away?
Was there anything to stop the incoming coalition reviewing and then reversing the decision?
Yes, it gets a cheap laugh at Corbyn in the chamber. So there's that I suppose.

Alanbrooke said:

Corbyn, TMay and dogging all in the same headline

what is OGH thinking ?

I once got ‘Boris Johnson’ and ‘pulling out’ into the same headline.

I am too pure for this world.

The_Apocalypse said:

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/986564303472996352
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/986578834672766978

Yep good points all. Sadly not what Jezza lead on and because it was rightly, as you say, so important, he should fucking well have done his homework and not let the narrative be what a dick he is.

Poor Labour.

CarlottaVance said:

In which case, why has someone been briefing “2010”?

Possibly both are true to a limited degree. If the document destruction was compelled by data protection as the home office said , you probably have multiple levels of sign-off.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

When did they actually got thrown away?
Was there anything to stop the incoming coalition reviewing and then reversing the decision?
Yes, it gets a cheap laugh at Corbyn in the chamber. So there's that I suppose.

Sorry but you can't try to shift the blame to the Coalition. It was a decision taken in 2009. End of.

The decision was the key moment. When it was implemented is neither here nor there. Once a decision to destroy these particular records was taken, they effectively ceased to exist.

It won't work trying to blame the incoming Coalition ministers for not re-examining every decision taken at every level of the Home Office and associated bodies.

Ishmael_Z said:

CarlottaVance said:

AndyJS said:

The Home Office kept the landing documents for 60 years. Why did they have to destroy them after storing them for so long?

Because they were moving building and there wasn’t space in the new place.....

And digitizing them was no answer, because hard drives just get bigger and bigger these days...

These things were primary historical documents, and if they were yer actual landing cards from yer actual Windrush, they are up there in importance with steerage class tickets for the Titanic.

I'm sure if they had been offered for sale, or for nothing, to the people concerned, those Windrush children would have been delighted to have had them.

@The_Apocalypse

The Graun spells it out for you:

"Downing Street says the decision to destroy the landing cards was an operational one taken by the Border Force, not one taken by the home secretary. (See 1.12pm.) Some readers have been in touch to argue this shows May was lying.

But May did not actually say that Smith or Johnson took the decision. She implied it, but she did not say it. Her actual words were:

[Corbyn] asked me if the decision to destroy the landing cards - the decision to destroy the landing cards - had been taken in my time as home secretary. The decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009 and as I seem to recall in 2009 it was a Labour Home Secretary who was in office.

This is misleading, because MPs were left with the impression that the decision was taken by the home secretary. But, in the annals of political dishonesty, this is very much at the vanilla end of things. Ministers are ultimately responsible for what their officials do, even if they do not take the decisions themselves. And nowhere is this more true than in the Home Office."

oxfordsimon said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

When did they actually got thrown away?
Was there anything to stop the incoming coalition reviewing and then reversing the decision?
Yes, it gets a cheap laugh at Corbyn in the chamber. So there's that I suppose.

Sorry but you can't try to shift the blame to the Coalition. It was a decision taken in 2009. End of.

The decision was the key moment. When it was implemented is neither here nor there. Once a decision to destroy these particular records was taken, they effectively ceased to exist.

It won't work trying to blame the incoming Coalition ministers for not re-examining every decision taken at every level of the Home Office and associated bodies.

Incoming governments frequently adopt reviews.
To say that the decision was taken in 2009 and there is nothing that can be done about it after that date is quite frankly horseshit.

Perhaps Theresa May should blame the Jews/Rothschilds for the destruction of the landing cards.

And also @Casino_Royale I didn’t say anything about the Tories being ‘racist’ that’s you’re projection. Although according to that BMG 55% do think the Tories have a problem with an issue, which is ashtonising given that it’s Labour (who had 61% saying they had a problem) that has rightly been headlines recently for this and not your party. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-racism-anti-semitism-religion-jewish-ukip-israel-palestine-a8305706.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Ishmael_Z said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

You are wrong to do so. This is a well understood constitutional principle, and it's just the way things are. If you don't like it, then don't become a minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_ministerial_responsibility

Wikipedia?

The_Apocalypse said:

Ishmael_Z said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

You are wrong to do so. This is a well understood constitutional principle, and it's just the way things are. If you don't like it, then don't become a minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_ministerial_responsibility

Wikipedia?

Or any undergraduate constitutional law textbook.

The_Apocalypse said:

Ishmael_Z said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

You are wrong to do so. This is a well understood constitutional principle, and it's just the way things are. If you don't like it, then don't become a minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_ministerial_responsibility

Wikipedia?

Having studied constitutional law, there is nothing in that Wikipedia article that is wrong.

Ministerial Responsibility exists. You might want to argue for it to change - but that is not what you have been doing.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

oxfordsimon said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

When did they actually got thrown away?
Was there anything to stop the incoming coalition reviewing and then reversing the decision?
Yes, it gets a cheap laugh at Corbyn in the chamber. So there's that I suppose.

Sorry but you can't try to shift the blame to the Coalition. It was a decision taken in 2009. End of.

The decision was the key moment. When it was implemented is neither here nor there. Once a decision to destroy these particular records was taken, they effectively ceased to exist.

It won't work trying to blame the incoming Coalition ministers for not re-examining every decision taken at every level of the Home Office and associated bodies.

Incoming governments frequently adopt reviews.
To say that the decision was taken in 2009 and there is nothing that can be done about it after that date is quite frankly horseshit.

I think the honest answer would be that successive Labour and Tory Home Secretaries were responsible for turning a blind eye to an act of historical vandalism - which also turned out to later have malign effects for some of the less well documented Windrush immigrants.

Rather like Corbyn's infamous dinner, this is something of a sideshow to the larger issue.

https://twitter.com/flipchartrick/status/986568066178932736?s=21

TOPPING said:

Anorak said:

TOPPING said:

Ishmael_Z said:

CarlottaVance said:

AndyJS said:

The Home Office kept the landing documents for 60 years. Why did they have to destroy them after storing them for so long?

Because they were moving building and there wasn’t space in the new place.....

And digitizing them was no answer, because hard drives just get bigger and bigger these days...

These things were primary historical documents, and if they were yer actual landing cards from yer actual Windrush, they are up there in importance with steerage class tickets for the Titanic.

I'm sure if they had been offered for sale, or for nothing, to the people concerned, those Windrush children would have been delighted to have had them.

Which would have cost money time and effort. A triage decision was made to reduce the amount of documentation retained. This looked sensible at the time, and under the legislation then in place. I'm sure there were cart-loads of other documents destroyed which would make your average historian weep, and I'm also sure similar decisions are still being made.

It's simple, straightforward, utterly-normal behaviour in any bureaucracy.

Yes fair enough I suppose so - the fact that by selling/giving them away would also have helped the issue at hand (proving validity) was not one that was considered.

What a relatively cheap option it would have been vs the reputational damage incurred now, though!

Indeed. I'm sure a certain council is reflecting how little extra needed to be spent on slightly more expensive cladding, given, well, you know.

Hindsight, eh.

felix said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.?

They now have the answer to that.

Well they don’t, because there’s confusion over whether the decision was taken in 2010 or 2009 for start. Hodges has also claimed the destruction began in 2009 as well. That’s a new claim to me. Very Rigby is still standing by her claim with some new tweets and Kevin Schofield is claiming that they were destroyed in 2010.

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/986587985524256768

Look, you are desperate to pin the blame on the Tories, and so you are having difficulty getting your head around the fact that, if any party was to blame, it has to be Labour, using Labour's own argument. That's all there is to it; everyone else has understood all that, and in any case realises that this would have been a decision taken by middling officials in the UKBA.

And also @Casino_Royale
No argument to my response, so you come up with an insecure projection. I have not blamed the Tories in literally any of my posts for the landing cards issue. I’m taking issue with all the excitment produced by the idea it was Labour government that took the decision; as if that’s the way the Tories can try to share the blame for this Windrush saga. As we’ve found it wasn’t a Labour government that took the decision so you’re wrong - they aren’t to blame in this case (indeed you seem to conceded as such in your last statement). Everyone hasn’t agreed with what you say, otherwise there wouldn’t be a discussion with clarifications that it wasn’t a ministerial decision.

OMG, OMG - take away the spade someone.

Are you okay?

The_Apocalypse said:

felix said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

ROFL. Dumbest post of the day so far.

I distinctly remember you lambasting me for seeing that I was reading more these stories about Windrush children some time back. So I won’t be taking critiques from you on how ‘dumb’ my post is.

@Carolus_Rex Well provide a link to that then instead of Wikipedia.

Really? You want a link to copyrighted material?

glw said:

Roger said:

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.

And you don't? That is one of the definitions of right wing parties.

The_Apocalypse said:

felix said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

ROFL. Dumbest post of the day so far.

I distinctly remember you lambasting me for seeing that I was reading more these stories about Windrush children some time back. So I won’t be taking critiques from you on how ‘dumb’ my post is.

@Carolus_Rex Well provide a link to that then instead of Wikipedia.

I think you're mixing me up with @oxfordsimon

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/flipchartrick/status/986568066178932736?s=21

first they fked up London, now they want to do the same to the rest of the country

pitchforks at the ready

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

felix said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

ROFL. Dumbest post of the day so far.

I distinctly remember you lambasting me for seeing that I was reading more these stories about Windrush children some time back. So I won’t be taking critiques from you on how ‘dumb’ my post is.

@Carolus_Rex Well provide a link to that then instead of Wikipedia.

Really? You want a link to copyrighted material?

There are no constitutional law text books on Google Books? Really?

Do your own research.

The fact is you don't want to because it would show that we have been correctly describing the concept of Ministerial Responsibility.

CarlottaVance said:

The_Apocalypse said:

CarlottaVance said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Ishmael_Z said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

You are wrong to do so. This is a well understood constitutional principle, and it's just the way things are. If you don't like it, then don't become a minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_ministerial_responsibility

Wikipedia?

Having studied constitutional law, there is nothing in that Wikipedia article that is wrong.

Ministerial Responsibility exists. You might want to argue for it to change - but that is not what you have been doing.

I think the argument is it only applies to Tories....

I never blamed the Tories for the landing cards issue. That’s what so odd about Richard Nabavi’s earlier assertion.

David Lammy has argued that it’s a resigning matter.....not sure if he’s sticking to that line....

Surely it is a moot point ?~
Both Alan Duncan and Jacqui Smith have left the building.

The_Apocalypse said:

I never blamed the Tories for the landing cards issue. That’s what so odd about Richard Nabavi’s earlier assertion.

Yet you seem to think it greatly matters whether the decision was taken before or after May 2010.

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/986593656902742016?s=20

TOPPING said:

The_Apocalypse said:

TOPPING said:

The_Apocalypse said:

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/986564303472996352
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/986578834672766978

Yep good points all. Sadly not what Jezza lead on and because it was rightly, as you say, so important, he should fucking well have done his homework and not let the narrative be what a dick he is.

Tbh it’s the narrative in the Westminster Village. Most people won’t start caring more about Corbyn being an idiot than getting this issue sorted.

Did you read the Graun round-up? Further afield than the Westminster village.

I did. They are still part of a group of those involved in political circles.

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

felix said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

ROFL. Dumbest post of the day so far.

I distinctly remember you lambasting me for seeing that I was reading more these stories about Windrush children some time back. So I won’t be taking critiques from you on how ‘dumb’ my post is.

@Carolus_Rex Well provide a link to that then instead of Wikipedia.

Really? You want a link to copyrighted material?

There are no constitutional law text books on Google Books? Really?

Oh, all right then.

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1714/0125_Bk.pdf

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

felix said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

ROFL. Dumbest post of the day so far.

I distinctly remember you lambasting me for seeing that I was reading more these stories about Windrush children some time back. So I won’t be taking critiques from you on how ‘dumb’ my post is.

@Carolus_Rex Well provide a link to that then instead of Wikipedia.

Really? You want a link to copyrighted material?

There are no constitutional law text books on Google Books? Really?

Do your own research.

The fact is you don't want to because it would show that we have been correctly describing the concept of Ministerial Responsibility.

Well it’s you claiming I’m wrong so I thought you’d provide it. But never mind.

Afternoon all

It seems we are all records management experts on here today. Destroying the landing cards after 60 years without even keeping a sample for historical record is regrettable at best.

I can't believe a Home Secretary would have been involved in the decision - there's an argument retention periods and arrangements were lax and as historical records they had some importance but I don't go beyond that and it isn't a hanging offence.

Much talk (and rightly so) about anti-Semitism. Could someone tell me if Conservative Jewish MPs spoke in the debate yesterday ? The accounts of Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth and others only portray how much of a journey we still need to take in some parts of society.

We must be as keen and vigilant to expose, condemn and make unacceptable anti-Semitic comments as we would islamophobic statements.

It is that failure which condemns Corbyn - the fact of it existing is something about which he can do little and I don't held him personally responsible for the private views of every member of his party but if a member of the Labour Party in that capacity uses anti-Semitic language Corbyn needs to be far stronger in asserting there is no place for that in the party he leads and far stronger in taking appropriate disciplinary action (including expulsion).

The same of course should be true for May, Corbyn, Sturgeon and indeed all parties and their leaders and I would re-iterate there can be no room for similar hostility to those of the Islamic faith.

Roger said:

glw said:

Roger said:

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.

And you don't? That is one of the definitions of right wing parties.

I didn't need you to demonstrate the point I was making, but thanks anyway,

Nigelb said:

The_Apocalypse said:

felix said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

ROFL. Dumbest post of the day so far.

I distinctly remember you lambasting me for seeing that I was reading more these stories about Windrush children some time back. So I won’t be taking critiques from you on how ‘dumb’ my post is.

@Carolus_Rex Well provide a link to that then instead of Wikipedia.

Nothing wrong with Wikipedia.
No one source of information is perfect, but Wikipedia is far better than most.

As for UK constitutional law, much of it is pretty uncertain at the best of times.

When I was at uni they told us to never use Wikipedia as a source for serious matters as it’s unreliable. So I’m going off from that.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

felix said:

The_Apocalypse said:

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@Richard_Nabavi Not only in my mind actually, but in the minds of many people affected by this decision as well. I’m sure they’d like to know when the decision was taken and when the destruction began.

And @BannedInParis as well, since he/she has decided to co-sign your post.

oxfordsimon said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.

and associated bodies.

Ministers are responsible for officials’ whose decisions they have no say over?

Yes - as a Minister you are responsible to Parliament for your department. I am surprised you did not know this

I am disagreeing with you.

ROFL. Dumbest post of the day so far.

I distinctly remember you lambasting me for seeing that I was reading more these stories about Windrush children some time back. So I won’t be taking critiques from you on how ‘dumb’ my post is.

@Carolus_Rex Well provide a link to that then instead of Wikipedia.

Really? You want a link to copyrighted material?

There are no constitutional law text books on Google Books? Really?

Do your own research.

The fact is you don't want to because it would show that we have been correctly describing the concept of Ministerial Responsibility.

Well it’s you claiming I’m wrong so I thought you’d provide it. But never mind.

No. I was stating the facts about Ministerial Responsibility. You are the one who 'disagreed'

You should back up your 'disagreement' with evidence not blank assertions.

Facts that you haven’t provided a link/source that isn’t Wikipedia to. You are the one who disagreed with me first as you were the one that took issue with my post. You should back up your disagreement.

CD13 said:

Mr Pubgoer.

"To say that the decision was taken in 2009 and there is nothing that can be done about it after that date is quite frankly horseshit."

Who's saying that?

Labour's problem is they are accusing the Tories of making the decision to destroy the documents. And then using that to discredit them. Unfortunately, they themselves made the decision.

I quite believe the Labour Home Secretary at the time wasn't made aware, or didn't notice at the time. He or she may have been busy doing politics or whatever politicians do. I'm also open to the fact that which ever civil servant made the decision wasn't aware of the possible future consequences. In essence, a cock-up and not a conspiracy.

But Labour's whole thrust of attack was claiming it was a conspiracy. What's the honourable thing to do? Demand that the Labour Home secretary at the time be sacked instead? It would at least be logical and fair. Or else admit their mistake.

Do the new kind of fairness in politics, Jezza. Sack yourself.

Who's saying that?
Look at the comment I was responding to.

I'm not defending Labour in the slightest.
They're a bunch of opportunistic gimboids.
I despise them as much as an PB Tory on here.

If they were all disposed of prior to mid 2010 then that defence would be fair.
We could put it all down to our Rolls Royce Civil Service, but as ministers are in charge, they're deemed to have known.

TOPPING said:

The_Apocalypse said:

TOPPING said:

The_Apocalypse said:

TOPPING said:

The_Apocalypse said:

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/986564303472996352
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/986578834672766978

Yep good points all. Sadly not what Jezza lead on and because it was rightly, as you say, so important, he should fucking well have done his homework and not let the narrative be what a dick he is.

Tbh it’s the narrative in the Westminster Village. Most people won’t start caring more about Corbyn being an idiot than getting this issue sorted.

Did you read the Graun round-up? Further afield than the Westminster village.

I did. They are still part of a group of those involved in political circles.

First of all, I hear what you're saying and understand that the broad thrust is the issue, not the details.

Which is why it is a shame that Corbyn let the issue become secondary to his idiocy. As for Westminster village or not, if every single political commentator is defined as being within it, with the implication that "real" people don't care about politics, then that is a depressing view of the country we live in and its inhabitants. Patronising, perhaps, also.

I don’t think it implies ‘real’ people don’t care about politics. It’s clear thought that political commentators willl follow things more closely than the average person.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/flipchartrick/status/986568066178932736?s=21

I don't quite know how to take that. I suspect it may be a while before Labour becomes the strongest party in Stoke D'Abernon and Haslemere but it's a fascinating socio-economic development.

It's only what has happened in the past. When people in London make their money they move out somewhere greener and quieter to settle down, have children and (apparently) become Conservatives. The children of the 1930s slums moved to the suburbs in the 1950s and became staunch Tories.

It's all about home ownership though, isn't it ? If you want to own your home and you can't afford it in London, move to the outskirts and you might be able to. The theory is home ownership equates to Conservative voting.

I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?