It's international fact checking day! And to celebrate, fact checking site the ferret has collated their results from the past year.
https://theferret.scot/ferret-fact-s...cking-numbers/
Scottish Tories:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZyEaCYWsAAwOWW.jpg
By comparison, the SNP (Scot Labour results were broadly similar).
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZyEYyXXcAETalH.jpg
They really are a shower of shameless shysters. :rolleyes:
I’ll be stealing this to win a few arguments with Conservative friends.
Not exactly an extensive survey, is it. More of a straw poll of someone’s social network.
They're at it again.
Detention of people who came here on the Windrush many moons ago.
Absolutely disgusting that May and co have re-written the immigration policy. Remember the vans going round London, with the "go home" logos on them.
I'd imagine the Europeans looking in on this, will have to get any deals, post brexit signed in blood, although the Tories might just like that.
Wow, this isn't exactly true now, is it? Story of a 35 year old potentially being deported but this has now been halted until further checks are made. 35 year old, nowhere near the Windrush!Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
The Immigration Act 2014,disgusting, really?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Personally I don't think it's a bad thing that we're required to prove our legitimate legal status. Many people I know have had to do it when applying for a job or when they went through the recent disability benefit/universal credit change.
The problem is what they are asking for and from whom. I'm not sure I could provide all the evidence they are after over the length of my life, it gets harder if you have long periods of unemployment or cash in hand work such as one guy being interviewed on LBC. 50+ year old, registered birth in UK but doesn't know if he's legal or not?!?
When you hear of stories (Guardian) that the Home Office deliberately destroyed landing cards/slips back in 2010 I'm not sure you can blame just one party here, something has broken in the system!
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
The way that the Tories have handled this situation just shows their true colours, and how they pandered to the far right in this country. Immigration vans going round estates telling people to go home. These are people who've worked hard and paid taxes for the last 40 odd years.
As I said, disgusting, but that doesn't really cover it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ration-amnesty
Have a read of these stories from 8 normal Britions treated like criminals through no fault of their own. Real people with real disgraceful stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
One poor guy has been denied Cancer treatment! Shameful.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ration-amnesty
Edit just seen the link above.
J
Sheesh what a mess!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
I get the fact that these people didn’t have documentation and maybe they should have thought about that before now (and shows how slack our system was previously for such things) but really? Some of these people have been here 50 years and to then summarily dump them in detention centres is simply wrong no matter which way you look at it.
Some more reading for you Speedy. Deliberately destroying documents. If that's what takes your fancy.
The Home Office destroyed thousands of landing card slips recording Windrush immigrants’ arrival dates in the UK, despite staff warnings that the move would make it harder to check the records of older Caribbean-born residents experiencing residency difficulties.
A former Home Office employee said the records, stored in the basement of a government tower block, were a vital resource for case workers when they were asked to find information about someone’s arrival date in the UK from the West Indies – usually when the individual was struggling to resolve immigration status problems.
He said he noticed a change in approach to these cases after the announcement of the “hostile environment” policy by May, then home secretary. In 2009 and 2010, managers gave case workers and members of his team time to look into cases. “Generally speaking, most Home Office staff want to try to do the right thing and be fair, within the rules,” he said.
But from 2013 onwards, he said, staff were “given no leeway to make a judgment call”. The changed atmosphere combined with staff cuts made it a more unpleasant place to work and many experienced staff took redundancy, he said. The people who remained were told: “These are the rules, stick to them.”
He decided to leave at around this time. “I am so angry that people are being treated in a way which is just abhorrent.”
https://t.co/M8z3dG5MBu
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Do you actually bother reading what anyone else writes?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
I'd already read that article and others. Whilst there are personal tragic stories I'm not sure how we make it right once and for all. The vast majority of affected people that I've seen/read/heard all seem to fall down in the passport application or lack of having one. I know a couple of guys of Caribbean descent that live/work in London for the railway, same age as me (so early 40's :wink: ) and have NEVER had a passport. They are sweating, Network Rail are happy with their background but they might not always work for NR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
The fact is we opened our arms to these folk to help bolster the workforce and never gave them the correct legal/legitimate status when they landed. Many have become legitimate over the years by applying for passports, marrying, registering births but there's a significant number that haven't and the reality is catching up with them now due to the 2014 Immigration Act.
Like I said in my previous post, I see no harm in firming up immigration policy in regards to employment and access to our social care system, but it has to be fair
And do you still believe the stories are not true?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
Jeez.
It was Treeza wot did it.
He said he noticed a change in approach to these cases after the announcement of the “hostile environment” policy by May, then home secretary. In 2009 and 2010, managers gave case workers and members of his team time to look into cases. “Generally speaking, most Home Office staff want to try to do the right thing and be fair, within the rules,” he said.
But from 2013 onwards, he said, staff were “given no leeway to make a judgment call”. The changed atmosphere combined with staff cuts made it a more unpleasant place to work and many experienced staff took redundancy, he said. The people who remained were told: “These are the rules, stick to them.”
He decided to leave at around this time. “I am so angry that people are being treated in a way which is just abhorrent.”
You sir are hard work. I quote that I read the deliberate destroying of landing cards from the Guardian. That would infer I've read the article. You then come along and quote what I've already read but tell me to read it then have the temerity to ask if I believe it or not,,,,it was ME that mentioned it!Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Edited to ask "what stories do I believe are not true?"
If only you could at least come out and say Treeza got it wrong. It won't help those still in the detention centres though.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
It's just not true, is it.:rolleyes:
Treeza got it wrong, right now that's out of the way, how would you have 1st & 2nd gen immigrants prove legal right to be here?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I've already said I reckon I could struggle to provide the paperwork that is/was required with the exception of my passport. Looking for your original thoughts?!?
I wouldn't have destroyed official documents due to lack of space in an official government building for starters. It might have been a clue to who arrived and when.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
If only someone hadn't decided to put pressure on those in that office space eh. Treeezaaa
Most folk in the stories, linked, have worked in the country for years, paid taxes, jeez, they even worked in the NHS. They must have been in the tax system.
As one of the victims said, she only got someone behind the glass telling her to get more evidence, when those behind the glass knew, it was the government who destroyed that evidence.
They were royally shafted by the Government led by Treeza, and it was through her actions as Home office minister that the **** hit the fan.
Someone's head should roll for this, but as usual, they'll all file in behind as if nothing has happened.
https://t.co/9jC5G1Hqv6
By all accounts that doesn't mean your legal to work here or meet the requirement to take advantage of our social care system.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
35 year old 2nd gen Caribbean immigrant, worked all his days but has never held a passport, can't prove he's British, so how does he?
I genuinely don't know how I could prove it without my passport!!!
I don’t think it’s a question that they shouldn’t need to formalise their status or indeed that they should have taken some personal responsibility in this matter, it’s the way they have been treated when trying to work through that process.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
Anyone who has been in a country for multiple decades, living, working (in some cases for the state for many years) and paying taxes should be treated as if they were a citizen but need assistance in clarifying their status not as an illegal that should be shunted off because their paper work is not in order.
So is it not possible to support the general requirement for people to have to prove their status but condemn the cack handed approach that has been taken on this segment of the population when doing so?
They've been asked to provide documentary evidence for every single year they've been here. Imagine trying to find that as a two year old landing here over 50 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
The system has treated them abominably, but they were severely hampered by the actions of the home secretary Mrs May, and her team.
Channel 4 news run a piece on it earlier.
https://t.co/VEQa0prGnh
He'll hopefully have a birth certificate, which would show his parents. Now if only they could be cross referenced with something like landing cards, which would show those parents arriving in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
The government have cocked up big style here, and everyone affected should be recompensed fully.
I can't imagine it, said it before but without my passport how do I prove my citizenship, how would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I see where the Home Office has resolved some of the cases they have issued "biometric cards" to the individuals concerned, I've never heard of such a thing but it does sound like a national ID card, something a lot of libertarians are against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
In the name of being open, honest and inclusive (I know, I know, it’s the tories), surely it would be far easier to take a position of something like:
if you weren’t born here (therefore all born in Britain are covered for this), but have been here for X number of years (something sensible accounting for very young children arriving with parents), and/or there is proof that you’ve resided here for the majority of your life (such as school records, tax records, national insurance number and contributions, employer history, marriage certificates, children’s birth certificates, or any other sensible measure), we'll grant you citizenship (or whatever word/ status suits) which will see you be treated as any other British citizen would be, and entitled to the freedoms and benefits therein.
At the end of the day, we are talking about people who have contributed to our society for most of if not all of their lives. We were happy to accept them when we needed a boost to the work force, and we shouldn’t be turning our backs on them now. They’ve put as much into our society as anyone else has in that time frame (often being treated as lesser beings for a large proportion of that time), they deserve the same as any other citizen would be given.
That would be the sensible approach, but no doubt the government will come up with something much more complicated to satisfy the right wing elements of the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
Couldn't :agree: more.Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
May says the decision to shred the documents was taken under Labour:Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43806710
The Home Office has repeatedly shown itself to be unfit for purpose, irrespective of the government of the day. The fact that no-one, including the likes of May, has been able to sort it is where the politicians hold responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by G B Young
According to an ex-Home Office employee on the radio today, these documents (landing cards) wouldn't have proved citizenship anyway as the individual should have reapplied for residency at some point. This seems to contradict the 1971 & 1991 acts/legislation that permitted citizenship to those "Windrushers" that had settled here.
They reckon there was 500000 concerned but the media is reporting less than 100 individuals thretened with deportation etc.
Whilst it's bad enough it's affecting 60/70/80 year olds that contributed to British society, I can't get my head around the fact there's people 10 years younger than me with similar worries!
And the Home Office say it was taken when the Tories were in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by G B Young
No matter who it was.... it's largely irrelevant in the bigger picture.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
According to what I've seen on the news, the decision never reached political circles in any case, so whomever was actually "in charge" government wise is pretty much irrelevant.
That said, when they made the decision to save space/money there technically was not going to be an impact.... Its later changes to legislation and the seemingly inept way any issues have been addressed that caused the issues.
Speaking to one of my mates who's a prison officer down south, he has two ex colleagues caught up in the mess and technically could be deported "back home"
Jeez....
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
You've quoted the BBC. Is this a true story, or has she misled, again?Quote:
Originally Posted by G B Young
There was a piece on 'PM' on Radio 4 this afternoon which featured input from a couple of former senior Home Office civil servants.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
The business case for destroying documentation was signed-off under Labour. The operational decision to go ahead happened under the Coalition.
What came across as being overlooked was that the destruction was of a far greater volume of official documents and records, not just the landing cards. This passed the 'common sense' test for me, as there are vast swathes of hard-copy documentation that would have been destroyed over time and when the work was carried out, it would make sense to batch it as large as possible due to the costs.
All the former secretaries of state at the Home Office have denied knowledge or said they have no recollection of signing off on the decision. One of the civil servants on R4 said that at some point an immigration minister (usually Minister of State level) must have had some sign-off. From memory of the programme, Phil Woolas (Lab) and Damian Green (Con) were the MoSes at that time. Neither had made a statement when 'PM' was broadcast but that may have changed by now. I suppose the question is which of them, if not both, had involvement and when.
What was also interesting was some analysis by 'PM''s political editor. He stated that he thought Amber Rudd would and should be safe - she wasn't around at the time of the destruction and didn't feel she was vulnerable about how Government has responded to events. He did make the point however that there would be elements within the Tories who would use this to try and weaken her position, as Rudd is the most senior Conservative who is out-and-out opposed to hard Brexit and a target for the full-on Leavers.
I always thought that stuff like this was transferred to digital records before being destroyed. I suppose the sheer volume of old records makes this impossible. Either way it’s a shocking state of affairs whoever gave the orders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I thought the same. I think you’re right though, volume is probably beyond our imagination and it’s a combination of some of it transferring to digital and some civil servant making a case that it doesn’t need to be kept at all and hard copy can therefore be destroyed - and in fairness that’s probably true for some records. The cost of destroying confidential records isn’t cheap so the higher the volume then the cost should be cheaper, in relative terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
What’s interesting is there was an outline business case, in 2009. That’s a formal document and theoretically it should describe why it was safe to destroy the documents as well as economical. My interpretation is that civil servants would have had to do an OBC whenever a cull of particular records was being mooted.
In which case surely the BBC have already submitted an FOI unless it’s already been rejected - commercial sensitivity would be one likely reason, though it was nearly ten years ago so that might be hard to argue.
It shows how little I know about this. I just presumed that everything was just shredded or some similar method of destruction. I had no idea there was a cost involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I sat and watched newsnight last night and was quite taken aback at the news from Lord Kerslake. You just never know how low the Tories will stoop.
The former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake, said that some ministers were "deeply unhappy" about the introduction of the "hostile environment" strategy under then Home Secretary Theresa May.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Kerslake, said some saw the policy, which has come under the spotlight during the Windrush row, "as almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the way it's working".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-4381...f-nazi-germany
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664
So Alan Johnson confirms Mays account of when the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken is indeed accurate.
Ahh the good old Nazi analogy...must be true then.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
As Johnson says, it was clearly a card May had kept up her sleeve for PM's question time where Corbyn must have been confident of deflecting the ongoing pressure on his leadership by giving May a hard time over this. But you can always rely on Corbyn to fluff his lines. He sets the bar so low as an opposition leader that he's contrived to make the 'Maybot' look almost prime ministerial and seen his own ratings slump:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ity-wanes-poll
I saw the Newsnight interview. What he actually said was that other members of the cabinet (who he refused to name) said the "hostile environment" was like something out of Nazi Germany. He also said that the whole thing was driven by the pressure created by Cameron's ill thought out 10s of thousands net migration target.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Which remains an unsubstantiated sound bite...Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I have no doubt that Britain has tightened its approach to illegals and I’ve already stated that those that have been here for decades should be treated as citizens first and foremost and therefore any response from the immigration authorities should be much more conciliatory.
But such comparisons are easily said and rarely helpful when in reality I do wonder if people truly understand what an authoritarian fascist state would be like compared to what the U.K. has in place currently.
I take your points and agree that Nazi comparisons are unhelpful and not something I would do myself (apart from possibly with the New Rangers :wink:). However, the interesting thing about this (unsubstantiated) allegation is that even other Tory high heid yins made the comparison. If true, that's a pretty damning indictment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
I suspect the Cameron/Osbourne wing of the Tories rather regrets the attempted UKIP triangulation to put so much focus on the non-problem of immigration which, let's face it, was the midwife of Brexit.
Is there not an unwritten rule that the first person that brings the Nazis into an argument loses the argument?
Godwins law IIRCQuote:
Originally Posted by snooky
Spot on, HM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule).... From Wiki -->
Generalization, corollaries, usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.[8]
However, the Nazis (and Stalinists for that matter) present a warning from history against which the drift to tyranny can be benchmarked and checked.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
I’ve always felt that Godwin’s Law is fundamentally nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
It, intentionally or otherwise, calls for the exclusion of arguably the most significant political and military events of the 20th century from any debate.
Unless you are arguing about who perpetrated the Holocaust with a Holocaust denier.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
J
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
Also, if you don't give a toss about unwritten laws.,
I thought all you right wingers swooned on the word of a Lord.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
The last couple of weeks have been harrowing viewing re the windrush debacle. Even the coldest of Tories must have been touched, by the extreme policy decisions of their beloved.
I've lost count of the amount of people either deported, in detention, not allowed back into their own country, or affected in some way. I wonder if the Home office will ever let us know.
The guardian and Carol Cadwalladr have done a great job in outing May and co.
Have you aye, lost count eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Over the past few weeks there's been a few different stories of folk deported. Folk not allowed back in and folk detained.
Of those stories there's been a few genuine cases where a British citizen with legitimate right to be here has been held in detention. There's two I can think of and both were quickly released when this all blew up. There's talk of them being compensated, and quite rightly so.
But then there was a story of a guy who couldn't come back from Jamaica for medical treatment, his daughter who is a UK citizen made a very emotional plea, the father however WAS NOT legal. As some right wing press might report, he was an NHS tourist.
I've obviously had my head in the sand though when it comes to all these cases you know of, so many you can't keep count!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Seems I was wrong then. Colder than the arctic.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
We've not even started on the Indians or Africans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241
Now now, you said you'd lost count of the amount of folk deported, detained or not allowed back in to their country.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Feel free to back up that sensationalist comment, but then you've got form for pulling the pin, chucking the grenade and walking.
I'm as disgusted as most that a government, ministers & civil servants can screw up to the point whereby legal and legitimate citizens are kicked out of their home or not allowed back in. And that HAS happened, but not to the numbers where you'd lose count if you actually stopped and counted the true genuine cases.
You're political point scoring would do a lot better if you weren't so sensationalist and reflected the facts of the day.
Of course, I may be doing you a disservice and perhaps you can't actually count that high, apologies if that's the case.
I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
The link above is from the BBC, and you can never rely on them to get it right.
You're doing a grand job of protecting the government of the day. I heard Dianne abbot going on about having hundreds of people affected, whilst the BBC say it's thousands. As I said, nobody knows the true number of people affected, not even the Home office, unless of course you work on your abacas which only goes up to 10. Then again, maybe it's only a couple eh.:rolleyes:
Been caught out again R7 :tsk tsk:Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
You never counted anything, let alone lost count.
Your posts would carry more weight if you didn't resort to sensationalising and lazy links.
Accusing Speedy of 'protecting the government' is just an ad hominem to deflect from his valid point.
Started counting, then lost count. It's easy to follow, even for you MAQuote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Speedy has been doing a grand job for Theresa and co, and still they don't have numbers. What's not to understand?
This was last Thursday and they're still counting. As in, lost count.
Officials have been contacted by more than 230 people over the bureaucratic blunders which resulted in long-term UK residents being wrongly threatened with deportation and denied health care.
More abacuses required.
Is that what I'm doing? I thought I was asking you, YOU, to back up your claim at losing count of all those people being sent home/detained/refused entry.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Did you say that, aye?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Abacus, oh man, yer killing me. I have read all the links that you and others including myself posted. I have read print, I have read online. At no point did I lose count, you however claim to have done just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
A figure I read in the London Evening Standard said 5000 "could" be affected. That's 5000 individuals that don't meet the criteria to demonstrate their legal right to be here. There is absolutely no suggestion 5000 people have been deported, detained or refused re-entry. These people will almost certainly get their paperwork expedited now with all the media focus.
I'm calling you out for being sensationalist, I'd even argue you don't care one jot for the individuals that are affected by this. A colleague of mines that potentially IS affected doesn't point score or kick the Tories as much as you do.
Feel free to label me Tory, conservative, whatever you see fit. Call me a Jambo. It really doesn't matter, I know where I lie politically and I know who I vote for. I didn't vote for either of the parties that "govern" me but I'm not bitter about it, in fact I'm quite happy for you to carry on with your deluded view that anyone that challenges you can only be a Tory. It just means that any further meaningful posts by your good self will be lost in the background noise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
Hey, you don't have to be a Tory to protect the Tory government, the Labour boys are good at doing that.
In other news, I don't have the numbers, you don't have the numbers, and the Home office don't have the numbers, that's why nobody knows how many people have been affected.
The bit in bold...You seem to think it's all going to be tickety boo for those affected, now that the media have got a hold of it. It's a pity that Theresa and co didn't bother their buckie to get it sorted some time ago, but she was too busy putting the policies in place which then affected the many, not the few.
I'll leave you to go through your posts and get back to me when you've decided whether it's been, 2, 10, 100's or 1,000's affected.
This one has a way to go yet, and I for one, won't apologise for having a go at the Tories, thanks. That's the same Tories who caused the problems in the first place.
I thought you said you had started count. Can you not remember what number you got to?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Is this a general affliction for Nationalists? It maybe explains why the NHS waiting time targets keep getting missed? :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Is that how you lost count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Correct, and I never claimed I did but I did manage to keep a tally of all those that I did read about.
I'd go even further and suggest to prevent a further PR disaster the Home Office will be very lenient on the processing of those individuals concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
But surely it wasn't just the Tories, who was in political power when these "Commonwealth" citizens were invited over.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
What about the permanent ministers, civil servants. They are not all signed up party political members.
This is an institutional cock up. If Home Secretaries fall, then that will be considered a win by some but won't make one iota of difference to those who want to remain in a country they call home.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
This situation has developed over Conservative, Labour and Coalition administrations. While politicians set the tone, civil servants would and should have been able to recommend policy to avoid this. At the same time, immigration is such a complex issue that sane advice by civil servants won't necessarily overcome political imperatives. And if we want to look where to blame for that we only need examine ourselves as a society.
My take is this is messy. Home Office policy and immigration policy especially, tends to be complex, often short-termist and often populist in order to meet a perceived need of reaction, regardless of the colour of rosette the Home Secretary wears. Point-scoring is ultimately pointless but easy to do.
I suppose that would explain why you Labour guys are circling your wagons together with the Tories on this. Nobody knows how many have been effected and I'm sure measures will have been taken to ensure nobody will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
This is the fault of the Westminster government at all levels and involving the big 2 parties. Is this why you're attacking the man and ignoring the ball?
Poor post, even by you're standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I lost count, because the numbers keep changing, and it's not only one or two people affected.
I could understand it, if it were only one or two people, but we've got families broken up and people detained or deported, and you seem to think it's funny.
Earlier in the thread, you seemed to be quite happy with the changes made to the immigration policy by the Tories. Changes which affected all those families. I'm sure your "friend", will be delighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
I'm out for another week, make sure and keep a tally now. 👌😩
Did I?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
What I actually said was "I see no harm in firming up immigration policy in regards to employment and access to our social care system, but it has to be fair",,,,FAIR!
That's a wee bit different to saying I'm happy and miles away from me being ecstatic about the current bureaucratic mess we have on our hands.
Hey, I suppose, one man's, disgusting, is another's tickety boo.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
Just not sure yet pal would enjoy the go home vans though.
Enjoy your day. 🌞
It's the rules on here. Question an outlandish statement that can't be defended and, before you know it, it's been turned back on you in an attempt to distract from the original issue. Either that or you get into an argument on the [hidden] meaning behind a word ("well yes, I used the word 'never' but what I actually meant was 'less than once a fortnight'. I thought that was obvious").Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
Could you three get a room please.
Ha ha, yes, pedantry seems to be more prolific here than political ideals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
I'll assume I'm one of the trolling triumvirate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Don't worry, I'll bow out from this convo as (I'd hazard a guess that R7 feels the same) it's starting to feel like I'm smacking my head against an incredibly dense brick wall.
Peace brothers!
I wasn't calling it trolling but the love-in was getting a bit embarrassing. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffi...0e4d0715defe8/
Oh the hypocrisy.
I am sure nearly every single MP is guilty of some kind of hypocrisy at some point in their careers. At this point was she not in the opposition, so therefore was doing her job and holding the government of the day to account. Just exactly what is happening today, it's what you expect the opposition to do and so they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
If we raked through all statements MPs said over the last 20 years I am sure there are many more cases.
I was expecting a response like that. Every time the Tories get caught spaffing hypocritical horse manure the inevitable response is but but but all politicians are corrupt but but but Jeremy Corbyn IRA but but but everyone's at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
I hope you live your life by these high standards you expect from others. As you pointed out it's all parties, but they are doing their job, if they get it wrong then and it's serious like the rest of us they will get sacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Politics is riddled with hypocrisy, it's how it works.
We would have no politicians left if they all resigned every time they made a mistake or someone dug something up from 15 years ago they said that is different to what they say today.
Lucky we live on a democracy though, if people don't like it then they get voted out.
:agree: ... and their meaning being, that makes it okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Clyde/banana boat :rolleyes:
To be fair, i think you are both kinda right. Politics is riddled with it, but to Hibrandenburg's point, it is an unsatisfactory response, and it isnt really good enough to hide behind whataboutery.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
Its absolutely not confined to the tories though- it probably seems it because the political make-up of this board sees thebtories get called-out more often.
I try my very best to live within the standards I expect from myself and others. If I was to demand someone should resign for whatever reason than it stands to reason I'd resign if I was guilty of the same mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
Saying everyone is at it isn't really gonna change things is it? All that does is make it acceptable when it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
:agree: That's about the long and the short of it, but it still can't be used as an excuse to accept lies and incompetence.
Both of which, Amber Rudd has shown in the last few days. The Tories will line up behind her for a few more days as long as May is off the hook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
:agree:
Its the pattern on most threads on the Holy Ground.
that, and for certain posters, using any little thing to criticise certain political parties, but shrugging off any criticism of their party with smug smileys and whataboutery.
Debate seems to happen less and less, sadly
Putting aside the pedantry on this thread on whether it's Windrush, Windrush generation, or Windrush cohort, this debacle of the Tory Government has to stop. More and more stories are coming out of the woodwork (this covers all wood):wink: and this latest one is rather disgusting.
When will Theresa and co take responsibility for their actions/lack of actions.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/ne...mothers/28/04/
“I am very concerned about Yvonne Williams’ situation. She has no family left in Jamaica and her grandchildren and mother are in the UK (after her mother arrived as part of the ‘Windrush Generation’). The way she is being treated suggests the government really doesn’t ‘get it’ when it comes to the treatment of Windrush generation people and their families.”
I'm convinced Rudd is only still in a job to take the fall further down the line. Something bigger is going to come out and her resignation then will be used to placate those calling for May to go.
This should almost he enough to bring the government down but the incompetent oppostion seem to be sleeping yet again.
Totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
They say people get the politicians they deserve - maybe we all need to think about what kind of people we want representing us, and not just go for the same old same old.
One down, more to go. :greengrin
Rudd resigns.
Liars, every one of them.
Come on Fluffy, let's see those broad shoulders of support we were all promised. :ill:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-44316580
"Sharing and pooling resources" is the go to phrase for situations like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...es_in_nothing/
This is a pretty decent summation of Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Tories. Her attempt at relaunching them as a centrist party may work though, especially with the help of her admirers in the commentariat
Bloodless ghouls? The article is so full of petty and rather childish descriptions of ‘Tories’ that it’s almost impossible to take any of the rest of it seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
I’m sure there is plenty of examination the National could do on Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives policies but it should really try and do so without littering it’s articles with tawdry insults and name calling...they never know it might help the reader to think that the article was at least half based on an objective view.
I was told fairly recently by someone who used to work for the SNP that they, and many others within the party, see the National as extreme, and representing the loony wing of the pro-Indy movement too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
It's almost as if it has become a mirror image of the very pro-union rags these people railed against, like the Mail.
It's a shame, because a serious, pro-indy daily would have been no bad thing.
Davidson does need brought down a peg or 12, the "What am I like?!?!" act that the Scottish media laps up is badly needing a take down.
Hopefully when she starts the next career move down south she'll get found out, the cuddly act won't get her over with the South of England lot.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
The pro-indy movement is crying out for someone or something that can make an intellectual argument for its case rather than emotive, inward-looking tirades based on false and contrived differentiation.
TBH, I think all parties are lacking a leader with charisma and (perceived) honesty & integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
The first party to find such a person is on a home run.
Yeah, I think there are two arguments here.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
One is about making a plausible case for policy - I don't think anyone is doing that, at the moment. It's a massive failure.
Second is the charisma point you've highlighted. I can't conceive the circumstances in which I would vote Conservative, but Davidson stands miles higher than any of the other Scottish party leaders and probably the UK leaders.
Not everyone will agree with that but it doesn't need everyone to agree with it. If she keeps ploughing a furrow of Iain Macleod one-nation Toryism while making it contemporary, then she will hoover up votes.
There was a time when the Tories would struggle to be more favourable than the NF or BNP in Scotland. She's changed that.
Thankfully there is little evidence that she is hoovering up any more votes than she did last year, indeed there’s a suggestion in polling over the last few months that she’s lost some of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Your second paragraph there is a bit extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
And to follow up my original post above....
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-whif...y/#more-103843
Try fluffing this one off, Mundell.
I'm not sure how old you are but there was a period through the late-eighties to the early and mid-nineties where the Tories declined massively in support in Scotland culminating in them having no seats after the 1997 election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
At that time you could understand that there were people who would back extremist and racist groups like NF or the BNP, there will always be people like that. But understanding why people would vote Conservative was near on impossible. It was a failing administration that had inflicted policies that had no traction whatsoever and encouraged civil protest.
Tories were toxic for a long, long time. Davidson, and in fairness Goldie, have brought them back into the game. It's foolish not to pretend that isn't so.
I was going to leave it there but as a further gambit - this isn't a partisan point - I suspect the Scottish electorate is innately 'conservative', note the small 'c'.
Who has the most appeal?
Sadly very much old enough to remember the 80s, Mibbes Aye :boo hoo:
Even in 97 the Tory vote iirc was in the low 20s (in fact not much less than Davidson’s “triumphant” high water mark). There is no comparison to BNP and NF.
That's not really answering my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
The Tories were absolutely toxic for a long, long time in Scotland. Whatever your view of Davidson, she has made them a serious player in the political process.
You suggested that the Tories were down there with BNP and NF in acceptability with the Scottish electorate. You and me both know that’s not remotely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Obviously I can’t argue that the Tories have made constituency gains under Davidson. Still less MPs than 1987 with only a few percent more of the vote compared with the 1997 wipeout. Serious player? As much as the leader of an opposition party with no chance of government whatsoever could be, I suppose.