Windrush failures

2»

Comments

  • And, it's Hell where I don't feel obliged to go into too much detail.

    But, I also believe that political leadership should be by people who have a vision of where the country should go, who can stand on a soap box away from where the crowd is heading and declare "come this way". People who can an argue for their position with passion and commitment. I may, probably will, disagree with them and support an alternative leader who's doing the same thing advocating heading in a different direction.

    What we don't need are politicians who simply conduct opinion polls, hold focus groups etc and then simply stand in the middle of the crowd saying "vote for me and we'll carry on as we are". That's a good way to be re-elected, to ensure you keep your generous MPs salary (or PMs salary) and have a bright future on the after-dinner speech circuit. But, we don't need followers who are in politics for their own benefit. We want leaders who have a vision for the betterment of the country (whether we think that vision is right or wrong).
  • Personally I'd rather have leaders who do what their people want them to do. We elect representatives, not rulers.
  • I don't know about that Marvin. The mob can be a harsh taskmaster.
  • We elect representatives, they form a Government (and Opposition). A Government should, surely, govern - and Opposition oppose. They should Govern and Oppose for the good of the people, they should have the time and resources to examine issues and identify what would be sensible policies for the good of us all in a manner that the vast majority of the electorate would be unable to do. They should be in a better position to govern than the electorate as a whole, which is why we elect them rather than have a referendum on every single issue that currently goes through Westminster. And, why we pay them (possibly too much).

    There is a difference between democracy and the rule of the mob.
  • Personally I'd rather have leaders who do what their people want them to do. We elect representatives, not rulers.
    A representive democracy isn’t what the people want, but what they need. It is a balance between voice and guidance.
    And it is supposed to protect all its people, not just the majority.
  • Yes, of course I'm looking for someone to lead the country where I want it to go.

    So are the fascists, the racists, the Brexiteers and everyone else with whom you disagree. If any of them was calling for the government to show "strong leadership" by doing what they want them to do regardless of how many other people disagree then you'd throw a fit, so why should you get to call for the same thing?

    Before I get my head bitten off for suggesting that tthis is supposed to be a Christian website I'll say that this country, well, England at any rate, has an established Christian church and that the fascists, racists and their fellow travellers ought to realise that their values are completely at odds with 95% of the Church of England and 100% of Christ's teachings.

    That they try to co-opt the Christian faith to stir up xenophobia only demonstrates the evil and hatred in their hearts and minds. I think I'm being measured and polite there.
  • for the good of the people

    for the good of us all

    According to whom?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    A representive democracy isn’t what the people want, but what they need.

    According to whom?
  • According to the public, who get to express their views on how well our representatives have done/how well we expect them to do at election time. Plus, through the exercise of democracy the rest of the time - corresponding with representatives, signing petitions, going on marches, letters to the editor of your favourite newspaper etc.
  • for the good of the people

    for the good of us all

    According to whom?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    A representive democracy isn’t what the people want, but what they need.

    According to whom?

    The public has a fine reputation for demanding lower taxes and more, better public services. Government is often a matter of walking that tightrope while rule by referendum, or by delegates, rather than representatives (look up the difference yourself ) would cause chaos*. We have Brexit as an example and we are less than a year away. So far only the day we move out is certain: the decree nisi is nowhere in sight, still less a decree absolute.

    *Unless it's a matter of selling out to the scum of the DUP to maintain a parliamentary majority.
  • One of the clear outcomes of this debacle is the absolute death of the principle that if, as a Minister, your department has screwed up royally, you should do the "honourable" thing and fall on your sword (metaphorical or literal, I care not). In the "good old days" (actually less than 10 years ago), the ministers responsible for this would be long gone. I can understand the Maybot clinging on to power but Rudd's defiance beggars belief. There is clearly no honour in the UK government.

    (And don't get me started on Boris Johnson's blatant attempt to turn this into an opportunity for him to move into No. Ten)
  • Populism is just saying "vote for me and I'll do what you want". Politics is saying "vote for me and I'll do this because...." The point is that real politics involves ideas rather than brain dead mob rule. And yes, those who can't tell the difference are just as fucking brain dead as the brayers.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Alas, I'm sure that there is a large constituency of voters to which harshness towards immigrants and foreigners, however long they have been here and whatever their immigration status, particularly non-white ones, appeals greatly. There are people who think the government is letting the country down by back-pedalling on this, by trying to pretend they didn't intend all along to be nasty to the Windrush generation - and plenty of other groups for that matter.

    These people want the government to convey the message that all foreigners aren't welcome - however long they've been here. They are the same sort of people as whoop with joy every time Mr Trump talks about building his wall.

    I recognise that one isn't supposed to say this, but they were a major and decisive component in the Leave vote.
  • Why shouldn’t people be able to vote for someone who will do what they want?
  • People do. It's called democracy.
  • Why shouldn’t people be able to vote for someone who will do what they want?

    Because it's not politics. It's marketing. And facile marketing at that.
  • The problem is when a very small minority lie to the rest of the population, and enough people fall for the lie to then make politicians think that the policies of that minority are what the majority want.
  • For God's sake, just go.

    And that, it appears, is Rudd's attitude to all immigrants, and my attitude to Rudd.
  • It doesn't seem surprising that Amber Rudd doesn't know what's going on in her department. I can't recall the details, but there was something last year during the election campaign where she was asked a question about her own constituency and didn't know some basic information about the people she was seeking to represent - average house prices, or something like that. But, the people of Hastings decided (by a narrow margin) to re-elect her as their MP anyway.
  • This is the age of the lie, isn't it? Both May and Rudd can deny that they were instrumental in creating the 'hostile environment' and its effects on Windrush people, and can forget that only a few days ago they were demanding unreasonable amounts of paperwork from old black people. Reality has changed, and the past is inoperative!
  • This also shows the weakness of May. Any previous PM in such a situation that was rumbling on for days and getting worse and worse would have called the Minister concerned in and presented them with a resignation letter to sign. Blood would have been let, the gods satisfied, and the person concerned would go onto the backbenches and then possibly be rehabilitated 12 months later. A new Minister would be appointed, who (if there were further revelations) could plausibly claim "Nothing to do with me, guv."

    That May hasn't taken this tried and tested route seems to indicate either:
    a) She knows if she loses Rudd, the likes of Gove and Johnson will be circling her like hungry vultures.
    or
    b) She knows that there is far worse to come out and so is keeping Rudd in place as a lightning rod for as long as possible.
  • Rudd is also her human shield. Everybody except the dog in the pub knows that the inhuman and cruel policies on immigration were intensified by Mrs May. As long as Rudd is out there taking the flak, May can sort of bumble around pretending she gives a shit, but relatively out of the firing line. I don't know how long this can go on, as every revelation and every non-apology makes the govt look incompetent and idiotic really.

    I was reminded by a friend also that the 2014 Immigration Act was not opposed by Labour, except a few honourable members, e.g. Corbyn.
  • Also not opposed by the mellifluous Vince Cable, in fact, he voted for.
  • This also shows the weakness of May.

    The weakness of Theresa May is Theresa May. Remainer now leading a government committed to leaving the EU. The nicest thing one can say is that she is devoid of principle.

    As far as Vince Cable's voting was concerned in 2014, he was a cabinet minister at the time. Cabinet responsibility, even more than the party whip, demands that you hold your nose when you vote. I'm prepared to believe he put his nose in a vice on this and many other occasions.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I think that's the point:-
    1. May is weak. There was briefly a time when it looked possible that she might have had something cold and steely about her. But if that had been so, Johnson would have been out on his ear long ago.
    2. If Rudd goes, May is even more in hock to Johnson, Gove, the ERG, and the Conservative party's Trumpeteers.
    3. In the background lurks the DUP and
    4. To cap it all, and this ought to be the clincher, you know, I know, everybody knows, that this didn't really happen on Rudd's watch. It happened on May's.
  • I was reminded by a friend also that the 2014 Immigration Act was not opposed by Labour, except a few honourable members, e.g. Corbyn.

    Similarly it's instructive how many of the parliamentarians who the commentariat are currently swooning over either voted for the bill, or abstained (often with a heavy side order of 'we must listen to peoples Real Concerns').
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »

    4. To cap it all, and this ought to be the clincher, you know, I know, everybody knows, that this didn't really happen on Rudd's watch. It happened on May's.
    Yes, but is there any doubt that Rudd is anything other than an enthusiastic participant in the agenda of being nasty to immigrants? She is the one who wanted to force companies to reveal what percentage of their workforce are foreigners. And she did nothing during the months when the Grauniad was pushing the story but no-one else was.

  • Ricardus wrote: »
    She is the one who wanted to force companies to reveal what percentage of their workforce are foreigners. And she did nothing during the months when the Grauniad was pushing the story but no-one else was.

    and in terms of continuing operations, her department is involved in stuff like this, which has terrible optics:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/amber-rudd-attempt-deport-immigration-witness-blocked-high-court
    Amber Rudd has lost a legal battle over her attempts to deport a key witness to a controversial death at a UK immigration centre. Jamaican Andrew Van Horn was due to be expelled from from the country this week, despite the likelihood that he would be summoned to appear at an inquest into the death, and to a separate police investigation.

    The inquest would have considered whether Rudd's actions had contributed to the death, the HO was trying to deport the witness before the inquest and a separate criminal investigation.
  • In a shock to no one Amber Rudd resigns.

    This gets the Prime Minister off the hook, as it all happened when she was Home Secretary
  • Given the fact that almost everything Rudd has said about this has been subsequently procen to be a pack of lies, this was entirely on the cards. The only question now is whether she has managed to deflect the pressure from May. As long as there are no more revelations, I think that May can tough this out.
  • Given the fact that almost everything Rudd has said about this has been subsequently procen to be a pack of lies, this was entirely on the cards. The only question now is whether she has managed to deflect the pressure from May. As long as there are no more revelations, I think that May can tough this out.
    That is a problem. Amy's complicity in this is well evident. It should signal her end. But then, she should have been out long before this, so...
  • aethelstanaethelstan Shipmate Posts: 29
    May is nasty and incompetent. Problem is, most of the pretenders are nasty, deranged and incompetent. Choices, choices...
  • I suppose May has to tough it out. The Tories dare not risk another leadership contest, in the middle of Brexit negotiations. Then again, Labour may fear another election, with the right wing media in full froth. Their best hope is presumably a bollocksed Brexit, with Dover grid-locked, etc. Happy days!
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Rudd's departure isn't quite the grounds for celebration that it might appear to be at first sight. It leaves the government, and therefore the rest of us, even more at the mercy of its much nastier elements.

    And after all, Rudd goes either for lying, or just as likely, not reading things that were put in front of her. Two other big boys in the Cabinet didn't go when they were caught out doing nothing less.
  • Or maybe Rudd didn't read her own letter to May, bit careless.
  • The joke going around is that Rudd had to resign over May's policies. Quite amusing, but also depressing, I mean the sheer dysfunctional nature of politics. Ah well, back to my collection of Georgian tea-spoons.
  • Then there's the Jeremy Thorpe quote after Harold MacMillan's "Night of the long knives" in 1962 (after some bad by-election results). Supermac sacked seven cabinet ministers and Thorpe said "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life."
  • The joke going around is that Rudd had to resign over May's policies. Quite amusing, but also depressing, I mean the sheer dysfunctional nature of politics.
    Though the problems originated in the Home Office under May's term as Home Secretary, I doubt the policy of creating a hostile environment was entirely her own making and must have been agreed at Cabinet level. We don't have a system of allowing the entire government to resign over mistakes they collectively made, except in having them call a General Election.

    AIUI the technical reason for Rudd to resign wasn't because of the complete balls-up of her predecessor, but because she hadn't read everything she should have read to know what her predecessor had done - added to which rather than admit she'd failed to read everything she proceeded to spin a lie to cover over the fact that she didn't know something ... lies which came home to roost as the information she should have known was readily available. To admit "I don't know" isn't great, though lessened if followed by "but, I'll find out". To avoid an honest admission of ignorance by telling porkies is worse. She got caught out, and her position was untenable.

    Meanwhile, the whole thing has now fallen on her like some sacrificial animal and she's deflected things away from others, the PM in particular. And, we move on without really addressing the underlying issue - that of creating a hostile environment for immigrants. Which has much wider implications - in particular at present it has left millions of people from other EU nations in limbo for close on two years, it has encouraged the far right to be more active in extending that hostile environment to thuggery on our streets, and is generally destructive of British way of life and economic future.


  • Meanwhile, the whole thing has now fallen on her like some sacrificial animal and she's deflected things away from others, the PM in particular. And, we move on without really addressing the underlying issue - that of creating a hostile environment for immigrants. Which has much wider implications - in particular at present it has left millions of people from other EU nations in limbo for close on two years, it has encouraged the far right to be more active in extending that hostile environment to thuggery on our streets, and is generally destructive of British way of life and economic future.

    Ironically the new Home Secretary is, to borrow the BBCs phrase "the son of a Pakistani bus driver". I hope his and his parents' admission paperwork is in order. Some underling is probably concocting a suitable dossier as we speak.
  • Amber Rudd resigns because she misled parliament.

    No, she should have resigned because she lied and clearly cannot be trusted
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I was shocked to find she might have been less than straightforward with the House. After all, her business career was conducted with such notable transparency and probity.
  • The Gruaniad has been described as 'going full Columbo' on her.

    I love that description. Finally hoisted by 'one more thing'...
This discussion has been closed.