I don't think it's the process of moving that produces the well-known aggregate drift rightwards as generations age. It's the passage of time in the new, more small-c conservative environment, combined with other life events, principally getting personally wealthier and/or* having children.
*frequently "or"
Also, things like petrol prices, one tends to rely more on a car, commuting/congestion and council tax starts to matter more, and I suspect neighbourhoods tend to be less atomised than in London.
Most people near where I live care about local shops, keeping the local pub, stopping development, reducing litter and keeping the community hospital, and there are many more dogs and families.
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
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,
Roger does show a stunnnig lack of awareness at times
I don't think it's the process of moving that produces the well-known aggregate drift rightwards as generations age. It's the passage of time in the new, more small-c conservative environment, combined with other life events, principally getting personally wealthier and/or* having children.
*frequently "or"
Also, things like petrol prices, one tends to rely more on a car, commuting/congestion and council tax starts to matter more, and I suspect neighbourhoods tend to be less atomised than in London.
Most people near where I live care about local shops, keeping the local pub, stopping development, reducing litter and keeping the community hospital, and there are many more dogs and families.
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 ?
It gives you a financial stake in the performance of the broader economy, it’s an investment too so also aligns well to capitalism. It drives personal responsibility - you have to maintain your own home - but also more freedom as you can extend or decorate it as you see fit, within reason. You also will tend to be more suspicious of things like council, wealth or inheritance taxes.
Almost all of that would tend to favour the Conservatives.
There is the distinct sense on this board that after many months on the back foot the multitudes of Tories have finally found a chink in the Messiah's armour. I can only see a chimera. Anti Semitism doesn't resonate because people don't believe the left are racist. Had it been the Tories facing these accusations whether true or imagined it would have made a difference.
Not quite as vile as your post about the rape victim yesterday but on the way
I know you're not one of the brightest tools in the box but you're not obliged to advertise it daily
I was just talking about your lack of self awareness.
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
Maybe but I've owned my home for more than 30 years and it's made me less Conservative-inclined not more.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
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,
Roger does show a stunnnig lack of awareness at times
His comments on the Saville affair were astonishing....
There will be FTAs with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and perhaps a few others announced with much pomp, circumstance, fireworks and probably a public holiday as the Government desperately tries to convince us how wonderful life will be outside the EU.
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
Maybe but I've owned my home for more than 30 years and it's made me less Conservative-inclined not more.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
Interesting. In my family there’s a equal mix of home owning Labour and Tory supporters. My aunt has her own business, owns her own home and has a car and she’s a hardcore Labour voter. Wouldn’t many of the metropolitan liberals talked about on this site be homeowners as well? I wonder why they aren’t voting Tory.
It's the nature of politics. But when you directly accuse someone, personally or by proxy of making a decision which you suggest is abhorrent, and you then discover it was actually your side that did it .... it becomes an egg on face moment.
A gentleman would offer an apology.
I suspect no politician would ever do so, but it does weaken your case if you were relying on it to make your point.
You can whinge "Oh well, maybe that was us, but that doesn't matter anymore cos you're still shit." sounds a little ungracious.
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
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.
Yes and those real people will look to those commentators...
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
Maybe but I've owned my home for more than 30 years and it's made me less Conservative-inclined not more.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
ie someone down the road/in the next village has got a bigger house than you.
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.
Yes and those real people will look to those commentators...
I don’t actually entirely agree. If anything it feels like the press has less influence these days. Otherwise Corbyn should getting annihilated in the polls.
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
@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.
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.
No, I think they told you that to encourage you to do your own research.
While it's true that academics rightly frown on citing Wikipedia, as a first stop for information on a topic you're unfamiliar with - and as a jumping off point for further research - it has become, over recent years, truly excellent (and far superior to old style encyclopaedia).
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Believing you're financially secure makes you vote Conservative. Having the sense your life could spiral out of control make you support Labour.
Actually all the evidence points to the opposite. When people feel financially insecure (due to mortgage, housing costs, global recession) they are inclined to Conservative viewpoints because the cultural grain of Conservatism is to allow people to keep more of their own money and when you have less or fear you will lose what you have got, that's a powerful message.
When things are going well (2001 GE a good example) people are happy to see public money spent on people worse off than themselves because they are secure in their wealth. Parents and grandparents are more than happy to see their children and grandchildren's schools better funded and want public services and want to see the poor helped. They are all right and it's human nature to want to help others.
The recession of 2008 was fantastic for Conservative political parties - not only did the centre-left parties in dominance lose credibility but the fear of what was happening and what might happen again sent millions running back to Conservative parties who had basically been politically eclipsed from the mid 1990s.
The problem for Conservative parties is if they are too successful in economic management, no one will thank them and everyone will think it's fine to let Labour back in because Labour are more trusted to run public services such as the NHS.
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
It wasn’t a Labour policy. It’s been said that the landing cards wouldn’t have made a difference anyway, so it didn’t start under their watch. Although Stephen Bush is saying this: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/986570070678700033
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
Do expand, please... a fascinating assertion.
Nope.
Disappointing...
You're not the Boss of me, you do your own thinking for a change.
"The former employee (who has asked for his name not to be printed) said it was decided in 2010 to destroy the disembarkation cards, which dated back to the 1950s and 60s, when the Home Office’s Whitgift Centre in Croydon was closed and the staff were moved to another site. Employees in his department told their managers it was a bad idea, because these papers were often the last remaining record of a person’s arrival date, in the event of uncertainty or lost documents. The files were destroyed in October that year, when Theresa May was home secretary." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer
@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.
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.
No, I think they told you that to encourage you to do your own research.
While it's true that academics rightly frown on citing Wikipedia, as a first stop for information on a topic you're unfamiliar with - and as a jumping off point for further research - it has become, over recent years, truly excellent (and far superior to old style encyclopaedia).
No, they literally told me Wikipedia was unreliable.
It's the nature of politics. But when you directly accuse someone, personally or by proxy of making a decision which you suggest is abhorrent, and you then discover it was actually your side that did it .... it becomes an egg on face moment.
A gentleman would offer an apology.
I suspect no politician would ever do so, but it does weaken your case if you were relying on it to make your point.
You can whinge "Oh well, maybe that was us, but that doesn't matter anymore cos you're still shit." sounds a little ungracious.
You're probably right in what you suspect.
Lammy (who generally I can't stand) started out well on this.
He then descended in to one of his all too frequent WTF modes with demanding resignations etc. I've had plenty of mates over the years who have been Windrush descendants, they all work and pay taxes etc. I will be first to the barricades to defend them or their parents if they face similar aggravation.
"The former employee (who has asked for his name not to be printed) said it was decided in 2010 to destroy the disembarkation cards, which dated back to the 1950s and 60s, when the Home Office’s Whitgift Centre in Croydon was closed and the staff were moved to another site. Employees in his department told their managers it was a bad idea, because these papers were often the last remaining record of a person’s arrival date, in the event of uncertainty or lost documents. The files were destroyed in October that year, when Theresa May was home secretary." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer
There seems to be a disagreement as to whether they were ordered to be destroyed in 2009 or 2010.
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Believing you're financially secure makes you vote Conservative. Having the sense your life could spiral out of control make you support Labour.
Actually all the evidence points to the opposite. When people feel financially insecure (due to mortgage, housing costs, global recession) they are inclined to Conservative viewpoints because the cultural grain of Conservatism is to allow people to keep more of their own money and when you have less or fear you will lose what you have got, that's a powerful message.
When things are going well (2001 GE a good example) people are happy to see public money spent on people worse off than themselves because they are secure in their wealth. Parents and grandparents are more than happy to see their children and grandchildren's schools better funded and want public services and want to see the poor helped. They are all right and it's human nature to want to help others.
The recession of 2008 was fantastic for Conservative political parties - not only did the centre-left parties in dominance lose credibility but the fear of what was happening and what might happen again sent millions running back to Conservative parties who had basically been politically eclipsed from the mid 1990s.
The problem for Conservative parties is if they are too successful in economic management, no one will thank them and everyone will think it's fine to let Labour back in because Labour are more trusted to run public services such as the NHS.
Yes, the best year for the British economy in the last 25 years was 1994 when it grew by around 4% IIRC. That was followed by the Tories suffering their worst defeat of recent times in 1997.
I don't think it's the process of moving that produces the well-known aggregate drift rightwards as generations age. It's the passage of time in the new, more small-c conservative environment, combined with other life events, principally getting personally wealthier and/or* having children.
*frequently "or"
Also, things like petrol prices, one tends to rely more on a car, commuting/congestion and council tax starts to matter more, and I suspect neighbourhoods tend to be less atomised than in London.
Most people near where I live care about local shops, keeping the local pub, stopping development, reducing litter and keeping the community hospital, and there are many more dogs and families.
So far as development goes, the best place (I believe to check) potential medium term development is the local plan/land availability assessment.
Actually all the evidence points to the opposite. When people feel financially insecure (due to mortgage, housing costs, global recession) they are inclined to Conservative viewpoints because the cultural grain of Conservatism is to allow people to keep more of their own money and when you have less or fear you will lose what you have got, that's a powerful message.
But that's an effect affecting a given tranche of the population (broadly, the just-about-managings, and those slightly better off). It's a big tranche!
The aging process is about individuals moving between tranches.
"The former employee (who has asked for his name not to be printed) said it was decided in 2010 to destroy the disembarkation cards, which dated back to the 1950s and 60s, when the Home Office’s Whitgift Centre in Croydon was closed and the staff were moved to another site. Employees in his department told their managers it was a bad idea, because these papers were often the last remaining record of a person’s arrival date, in the event of uncertainty or lost documents. The files were destroyed in October that year, when Theresa May was home secretary." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer
There seems to be a disagreement as to whether they were ordered to be destroyed in 2009 or 2010.
There is. Some people were borthered when I brought that up earlier on.
"The former employee (who has asked for his name not to be printed) said it was decided in 2010 to destroy the disembarkation cards, which dated back to the 1950s and 60s, when the Home Office’s Whitgift Centre in Croydon was closed and the staff were moved to another site. Employees in his department told their managers it was a bad idea, because these papers were often the last remaining record of a person’s arrival date, in the event of uncertainty or lost documents. The files were destroyed in October that year, when Theresa May was home secretary." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer
There seems to be a disagreement as to whether they were ordered to be destroyed in 2009 or 2010.
A low level employee (which is what this source appears to be) would not have been aware of the exact point when a decision was made, they would only know when their department had to start implementing it.
All that has been really dealt with today is the knocking on the head of the conspiracy theory that the Tories ordered arrival records to be destroyed in 2010 so that after they introduced Immigration changes in 2014, they could deport Commonwealth immigrants in 2018 - a conspiracy that I heard this morning.
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.....
That's a pretty poor excuse in my opinion.
Does anyone know how many pages of documents there were? Looking online it's about 5p a page to scan large numbers of documents. Maybe more if there are special requirements or unusual types of documents. Of course storing the data digitally carries a cost, but it won't be huge.
@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.
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 governmen
Ministers s.
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.
No, I think they told you that to encourage you to do your own research.
While it's true that academics rightly frown on citing Wikipedia, as a first stop for information on a topic you're unfamiliar with - and as a jumping off point for further research - it has become, over recent years, truly excellent (and far superior to old style encyclopaedia).
No, they literally told me Wikipedia was unreliable.
Yes, and they told you that to encourage you to do your own research, I suspect (though I don't know what subject you were studying). In any event, it's usually a good idea to assume that any single source of information can be unreliable.
As an example, can you point me to a single source with this detail, accuracy and footnoting, freely available online, on the Syrian conflict... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
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.
No, I think they told you that to encourage you to do your own research.
While it's true that academics rightly frown on citing Wikipedia, as a first stop for information on a topic you're unfamiliar with - and as a jumping off point for further research - it has become, over recent years, truly excellent (and far superior to old style encyclopaedia).
No, they literally told me Wikipedia was unreliable.
Yes, and they told you that to encourage you to do your own research, I suspect (though I don't know what subject you were studying). In any event, it's usually a good idea to assume that any single source of information can be unreliable.
As an example, can you point me to a single source with this detail, accuracy and footnoting, freely available online, on the Syrian conflict... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War
Wikipedia's own position is that it should not be cited:
"We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia"
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
Do expand, please... a fascinating assertion.
Nope.
Disappointing...
You're not the Boss of me, you do your own thinking for a change.
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
Ah, right, I had missed some of the subtleties of the Labour position.
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
It's probably my cynical view of politicians. I think they're capable of being simplistic, venial and lazy, like anyone else. That's why I tend to assume cock-up as much as conspiracy.
The Windrush episode seems one such. I doubt if Mrs May schemed to deliberately do the passengers down. I wouldn't exactly call it a cunning plan. Even Jezza usually does things for what he thinks is best.
But sometimes politicians zone in on what they think matters most. Carbon targets rather than particulate or nitrogen oxides contamination in the case of fuel. Or immigration targets rather than possible unforeseen consequences.
That's why critical advisors would be better rather than an echo chamber. But it is what it is.
Actually all the evidence points to the opposite. When people feel financially insecure (due to mortgage, housing costs, global recession) they are inclined to Conservative viewpoints because the cultural grain of Conservatism is to allow people to keep more of their own money and when you have less or fear you will lose what you have got, that's a powerful message.
But that's an effect affecting a given tranche of the population (broadly, the just-about-managings, and those slightly better off). It's a big tranche!
The aging process is about individuals moving between tranches.
I wasn't aware ageing had anything to do with it.
The experience of becoming a homeowner (as I vaguely remember it) is a mixture of responsibility and dread. You owe this mountain of money (mortgage), you have this bottomless pit to run (house) and anyone who you bring in to help you wants to pay for their foreign holiday off your earnings (some tradespeople). The consequence of all this politically is, I believe, a simple one - financial insecurity makes you more receptive to political messages which suggest you will be able to keep more of your own disposable income.
As others have said, it's not the same when you rent and the growth of the private rented sector (especially in London) has changed the politics of some Boroughs considerably.
It was compounded in the 80s and 90s when individuals were allowed to take on unsustainable levels of debt by irresponsible lenders who operated in a virtually unregulated environment. That ended with 15% interest rates and negative equity and then started up again in the era of low interest rates.
Houses become a different kind of problem as you get older - they still require maintenance but as income falls when work ends and retirement begins it's a new series of financial problems. The answer then is equity release or downsizing neither of which are without their issues.
The problem at the moment is we are all about building houses for the young - demographically we should be building houses for the old with all the support services they require but the likes of Persimmon, Berkeley, Wimpey and the rest aren't interested in any of that. Perhaps we need to re-define home ownership as a concept for the retired and elderly.
Indeed, from recent experience, there's a lot we should redefine . Looking at how we approach and deal with decline and death is a tough one but we don't do it as well s we could for a prosperous society.
I've always wondered - why does owning your home make you vote Conservative ?
Because you realise you can't blame anyone else when the plumbing leaks, or get a free replacement when the washing machine breaks down because you've overloaded it.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
Do expand, please... a fascinating assertion.
Nope.
Disappointing...
You're not the Boss of me, you do your own thinking for a change.
Touchy...
It would certainly curtail much of the discussion on here if followed by all of us.
PB participant A: puts forward idea PB participant B: that's interesting, tell me more PB participant A: none of your goddamn business
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
So it wasn't to do with labour ministers when it started in 2009 but was TM responsible when she was 4 months into post in 2010
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
So it wasn't to do with labour ministers when it started in 2009 but was TM responsible when she was 4 months into post in 2010
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
So it wasn't to do with labour ministers when it started in 2009 but was TM responsible when she was 4 months into post in 2010
It is a view I suppose but not credible
Labour ministers didn’t take the decision.
Must say I'm very impressed with your Stalingrad standard defending today. Suspect it's in a lost cause though.
Wikipedia's own position is that it should not be cited:
"We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia"
Of course it shouldn't be cited in an academic paper. Doh. Linking to it in an online conversation is not citing it, and is a lot more helpful than referring to a proper peer-reviewed source which is unlikely to be on the unpaywalled internet.
Wikipedia's own position is that it should not be cited:
"We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia"
This is getting a bit silly, even for PB. Yes, you'd be silly to cite Wikipedia for a serious, professional matter.
But this isn't a serious, professional matter. It's a discussion on a politics blog, and it's probably a good and accurate enough source for that purpose. What's more, the information in question may not be easily accessible elsewhere on t'Internet to us plebs.
Then there's the important question: why isn't everyone outside getting sunburnt?
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
So it wasn't to do with labour ministers when it started in 2009 but was TM responsible when she was 4 months into post in 2010
It is a view I suppose but not credible
Labour ministers didn’t take the decision.
Must say I'm very impressed with your Stalingrad standard defending today. Suspect it's in a lost cause though.
Stalingrad? Just pointing out what the government themselves have said. Not sure what cause has been ‘lost.’ Plenty of people here defend the Tories on a general basis and yet you don’t seem to have issue with that. I’ve been critical of Labour on many things since 2015 but I defend them on this one thing and now it’s a problem? Please.
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
Who has said this?
"The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time":
At PMQs, the prime minister tried to shift the blame onto the last Labour government but was undermined by her own spokesperson minutes later, who then stated it was an operational decision, which Labour ministers would not have been aware of.
"the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies":
“This revelation from a whistleblower reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty within our immigration system. .. This was no accident and the orders to destroys records must have come from somebody at the top of the department. It is time for the home secretary to do the honourable thing, take responsibility for this fiasco and resign.”
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
So it wasn't to do with labour ministers when it started in 2009 but was TM responsible when she was 4 months into post in 2010
It is a view I suppose but not credible
Labour ministers didn’t take the decision.
Must say I'm very impressed with your Stalingrad standard defending today. Suspect it's in a lost cause though.
Stalingrad? Just pointing out what the government themselves have said. Not sure what cause has been ‘lost.’ Plenty of people here defend the Tories on a general basis and yet you don’t seem to have issue with that. I’ve been critical of Labour on many things since 2015 but I defend them on this one thing and now it’s a problem? Please.
Wikipedia's own position is that it should not be cited:
"We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia"
This is getting a bit silly, even for PB. Yes, you'd be silly to cite Wikipedia for a serious, professional matter.
But this isn't a serious, professional matter. It's a discussion on a politics blog, and it's probably a good and accurate enough source for that purpose. What's more, the information in question may not be easily accessible elsewhere on t'Internet to us plebs.
Then there's the important question: why isn't everyone outside getting sunburnt?
I’ve got work to do, but I’ve ended up spending most of my afternoon arguing with everyone on this site.
I was thinking ‘serious’ more in terms of the discussion topic.
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
So it wasn't to do with labour ministers when it started in 2009 but was TM responsible when she was 4 months into post in 2010
It is a view I suppose but not credible
Labour ministers didn’t take the decision.
Must say I'm very impressed with your Stalingrad standard defending today. Suspect it's in a lost cause though.
Stalingrad? Just pointing out what the government themselves have said. Not sure what cause has been ‘lost.’ Plenty of people here defend the Tories on a general basis and yet you don’t seem to have issue with that. I’ve been critical of Labour on many things since 2015 but I defend them on this one thing and now it’s a problem? Please.
Oh chill out.
Your the one who was so moved by my posts you had to comment on them.
I don't think it's the process of moving that produces the well-known aggregate drift rightwards as generations age. It's the passage of time in the new, more small-c conservative environment, combined with other life events, principally getting personally wealthier and/or* having children.
*frequently "or"
Also, things like petrol prices, one tends to rely more on a car, commuting/congestion and council tax starts to matter more, and I suspect neighbourhoods tend to be less atomised than in London.
Most people near where I live care about local shops, keeping the local pub, stopping development, reducing litter and keeping the community hospital, and there are many more dogs and families.
The best example being mainly Labour voters who moved out of the East End into new towns and overspill estates, and who gradually stopped voting Labour.
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
So it wasn't to do with labour ministers when it started in 2009 but was TM responsible when she was 4 months into post in 2010
It is a view I suppose but not credible
Labour ministers didn’t take the decision.
Must say I'm very impressed with your Stalingrad standard defending today. Suspect it's in a lost cause though.
Stalingrad? Just pointing out what the government themselves have said. Not sure what cause has been ‘lost.’ Plenty of people here defend the Tories on a general basis and yet you don’t seem to have issue with that. I’ve been critical of Labour on many things since 2015 but I defend them on this one thing and now it’s a problem? Please.
What do you think people are accusing Labour of?
What people are pointing out is that Jeremy Corbyn asked a stupid question, was unable to reposition himself when it was answered in a way he wasn't expecting and because of his desire to have a 'gotcha' moment, managed to loose the argument over the Windrush children, which really shouldn't have been possible.
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
Who has said this?
"The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time":
At PMQs, the prime minister tried to shift the blame onto the last Labour government but was undermined by her own spokesperson minutes later, who then stated it was an operational decision, which Labour ministers would not have been aware of.
"the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies":
“This revelation from a whistleblower reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty within our immigration system. .. This was no accident and the orders to destroys records must have come from somebody at the top of the department. It is time for the home secretary to do the honourable thing, take responsibility for this fiasco and resign.”
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
Who has said this?
"The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time":
At PMQs, the prime minister tried to shift the blame onto the last Labour government but was undermined by her own spokesperson minutes later, who then stated it was an operational decision, which Labour ministers would not have been aware of.
"the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies":
“This revelation from a whistleblower reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty within our immigration system. .. This was no accident and the orders to destroys records must have come from somebody at the top of the department. It is time for the home secretary to do the honourable thing, take responsibility for this fiasco and resign.”
So on Windrush, the latest Labour iteration is that the process started on their watch, yes - but the Tories are complete and utter shits for not stopping twattish Labour policies from being implemented. That about it?
There's a bit more. The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time, but the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies.
Who has said this?
"The fact that the process started on their watch has absolutely nothing to do with the ministers at the time":
At PMQs, the prime minister tried to shift the blame onto the last Labour government but was undermined by her own spokesperson minutes later, who then stated it was an operational decision, which Labour ministers would not have been aware of.
"the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies":
“This revelation from a whistleblower reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty within our immigration system. .. This was no accident and the orders to destroys records must have come from somebody at the top of the department. It is time for the home secretary to do the honourable thing, take responsibility for this fiasco and resign.”
"The former employee (who has asked for his name not to be printed) said it was decided in 2010 to destroy the disembarkation cards, which dated back to the 1950s and 60s, when the Home Office’s Whitgift Centre in Croydon was closed and the staff were moved to another site. Employees in his department told their managers it was a bad idea, because these papers were often the last remaining record of a person’s arrival date, in the event of uncertainty or lost documents. The files were destroyed in October that year, when Theresa May was home secretary." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer
There seems to be a disagreement as to whether they were ordered to be destroyed in 2009 or 2010.
A low level employee (which is what this source appears to be) would not have been aware of the exact point when a decision was made, they would only know when their department had to start implementing it.
All that has been really dealt with today is the knocking on the head of the conspiracy theory that the Tories ordered arrival records to be destroyed in 2010 so that after they introduced Immigration changes in 2014, they could deport Commonwealth immigrants in 2018 - a conspiracy that I heard this morning.
This is a failure of both sides of government, policy and implementation. If a ministerial career wasn’t being questioned right now, something would be very wrong.
Comments
Most people near where I live care about local shops, keeping the local pub, stopping development, reducing litter and keeping the community hospital, and there are many more dogs and families.
Almost all of that would tend to favour the Conservatives.
Thanks for the illustration, very timely.
I see the distortions of market economics which lead to homeowners being gouged by ruthless tradespeople.
I suspect we're not miles apart.
It's the nature of politics. But when you directly accuse someone, personally or by proxy of making a decision which you suggest is abhorrent, and you then discover it was actually your side that did it .... it becomes an egg on face moment.
A gentleman would offer an apology.
I suspect no politician would ever do so, but it does weaken your case if you were relying on it to make your point.
You can whinge "Oh well, maybe that was us, but that doesn't matter anymore cos you're still shit." sounds a little ungracious.
Hopefully someone gets in contact with him.
While it's true that academics rightly frown on citing Wikipedia, as a first stop for information on a topic you're unfamiliar with - and as a jumping off point for further research - it has become, over recent years, truly excellent (and far superior to old style encyclopaedia).
When things are going well (2001 GE a good example) people are happy to see public money spent on people worse off than themselves because they are secure in their wealth. Parents and grandparents are more than happy to see their children and grandchildren's schools better funded and want public services and want to see the poor helped. They are all right and it's human nature to want to help others.
The recession of 2008 was fantastic for Conservative political parties - not only did the centre-left parties in dominance lose credibility but the fear of what was happening and what might happen again sent millions running back to Conservative parties who had basically been politically eclipsed from the mid 1990s.
The problem for Conservative parties is if they are too successful in economic management, no one will thank them and everyone will think it's fine to let Labour back in because Labour are more trusted to run public services such as the NHS.
It’s been said that the landing cards wouldn’t have made a difference anyway, so it didn’t start under their watch. Although Stephen Bush is saying this: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/986570070678700033
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer
Lammy (who generally I can't stand) started out well on this.
He then descended in to one of his all too frequent WTF modes with demanding resignations etc.
I've had plenty of mates over the years who have been Windrush descendants, they all work and pay taxes etc.
I will be first to the barricades to defend them or their parents if they face similar aggravation.
Mine is here for instance:
http://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/everything-else/planning-building/planning-policy/land-availability-assessment/land-availability-assessment-housing-paper.aspx
The aging process is about individuals moving between tranches.
All that has been really dealt with today is the knocking on the head of the conspiracy theory that the Tories ordered arrival records to be destroyed in 2010 so that after they introduced Immigration changes in 2014, they could deport Commonwealth immigrants in 2018 - a conspiracy that I heard this morning.
As an example, can you point me to a single source with this detail, accuracy and footnoting, freely available online, on the Syrian conflict...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War
"We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia"
https://twitter.com/ameliagentleman/status/986572614079602688
https://twitter.com/ameliagentleman/status/986576533065293830
It's probably my cynical view of politicians. I think they're capable of being simplistic, venial
and lazy, like anyone else. That's why I tend to assume cock-up as much as conspiracy.
The Windrush episode seems one such. I doubt if Mrs May schemed to deliberately do the passengers down. I wouldn't exactly call it a cunning plan. Even Jezza usually does things for what he thinks is best.
But sometimes politicians zone in on what they think matters most. Carbon targets rather than particulate or nitrogen oxides contamination in the case of fuel. Or immigration targets rather than possible unforeseen consequences.
That's why critical advisors would be better rather than an echo chamber. But it is what it is.
The experience of becoming a homeowner (as I vaguely remember it) is a mixture of responsibility and dread. You owe this mountain of money (mortgage), you have this bottomless pit to run (house) and anyone who you bring in to help you wants to pay for their foreign holiday off your earnings (some tradespeople). The consequence of all this politically is, I believe, a simple one - financial insecurity makes you more receptive to political messages which suggest you will be able to keep more of your own disposable income.
As others have said, it's not the same when you rent and the growth of the private rented sector (especially in London) has changed the politics of some Boroughs considerably.
It was compounded in the 80s and 90s when individuals were allowed to take on unsustainable levels of debt by irresponsible lenders who operated in a virtually unregulated environment. That ended with 15% interest rates and negative equity and then started up again in the era of low interest rates.
Houses become a different kind of problem as you get older - they still require maintenance but as income falls when work ends and retirement begins it's a new series of financial problems. The answer then is equity release or downsizing neither of which are without their issues.
The problem at the moment is we are all about building houses for the young - demographically we should be building houses for the old with all the support services they require but the likes of Persimmon, Berkeley, Wimpey and the rest aren't interested in any of that. Perhaps we need to re-define home ownership as a concept for the retired and elderly.
Indeed, from recent experience, there's a lot we should redefine . Looking at how we approach and deal with decline and death is a tough one but we don't do it as well s we could for a prosperous society.
PB participant A: puts forward idea
PB participant B: that's interesting, tell me more
PB participant A: none of your goddamn business
It is a view I suppose but not credible
F1: Barrichello, formerly of many teams including Ferrari and Brawn, is recovering after collapsing due to a brain tumour.
But this isn't a serious, professional matter. It's a discussion on a politics blog, and it's probably a good and accurate enough source for that purpose. What's more, the information in question may not be easily accessible elsewhere on t'Internet to us plebs.
Then there's the important question: why isn't everyone outside getting sunburnt?
At PMQs, the prime minister tried to shift the blame onto the last Labour government but was undermined by her own spokesperson minutes later, who then stated it was an operational decision, which Labour ministers would not have been aware of.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/apr/18/pmqs-may-corbyn-eu-withdrawal-bill-lords-ministers-face-questioning-by-peers-over-brexit-meaningful-vote-politics-live
"the fact that the process wasn't stopped on the next watch is 100% the fault of Theresa May, and what's more she deliberately didn't stop it because she wanted to kick legally-settled people in the goolies":
“This revelation from a whistleblower reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty within our immigration system.
..
This was no accident and the orders to destroys records must have come from somebody at the top of the department. It is time for the home secretary to do the honourable thing, take responsibility for this fiasco and resign.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/home-office-destroyed-windrush-landing-cards-says-ex-staffer
I was thinking ‘serious’ more in terms of the discussion topic.
What people are pointing out is that Jeremy Corbyn asked a stupid question, was unable to reposition himself when it was answered in a way he wasn't expecting and because of his desire to have a 'gotcha' moment, managed to loose the argument over the Windrush children, which really shouldn't have been possible.
Do you think JC did a competent job at PMQs?
NEW THREAD