UK Politics - Now is the Spring of our Discontent

[mormont]

Notice how the rhetoric is always the same, underneath, whether it's asylum seekers, trans people or people on benefits:

We have to be unspeakably awful to this vulnerable group because some of them might be taking advantage.

Never an argument applied to any group with power. Only the weak.

[karaddin]

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

For the guy who basically said he's the most honest MP in the House, this looks awful.

Refuses to answer the question, and instead tells the journalist to ask Sue Gray. JFC. Just answer the question, man.

I'm guessing his reluctance to engage with what is a pretty tame question means the answer is probably sometime before the Partygate inquiry.

This is slowly turning into a fuckup of monumental proportions. With every passing day, he is exposing himself as just another incompetent, dishonest tosser.

 

 

 

 

My wife heard me listening to that and her first comment was "my 'there was nothing' improper t-shirt is raising a lot of questions already answered by my 'there was nothing improper t-shirt" despite having no idea what it was about. Very much convinced without context that there was indeed something improper while accepting that he had been looking for a chief of staff.

So yeah I'm agreeing that wasn't particularly well handled.

[Raja]

How are they not looking at this stuff before they publish it?

[BigFatCoward]

I hate to say it, but politically this isn't a terrible plan. I've heard a few people I thought were a bit right wing, but slightly normal, saying its a great idea. 

[Mentat]

The wording "access to the UK's modern slavery system" seems atrocious. Access to the UK's modern protections against slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labor would surely have been better. The implication that any human rights claim made by a person who has entered the UK illegally is spurious (hence these people should have no recourse to the protection of their human rights) also seems very extreme...

[Heartofice]

That will really scare people off. The UK's Modern Slavery System is the best in the world, we have the best slave masters and cutting edge slaves from around the globe, the envy of any Middle Eastern Theocracy. 

Who doesn't want access to that?

[Ser Reptitious]

3 hours ago, Raja said:

How are they not looking at this stuff before they publish it?

Wow, denied access to the UK's modern slavery system. That's some Freudian slip there!

[Tywin et al.]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I hate to say it, but politically this isn't a terrible plan. I've heard a few people I thought were a bit right wing, but slightly normal, saying its a great idea. 

Says a lot about what he thinks of the average citizen...

Edited March 8 by Tywin et al.

[mormont]

Let's reflect on the fact that the UK has a court system that's in danger of actual collapse because the government won't fund anything in it - from paying lawyers to repairing the buildings: police who are contemplating strike action because they're so underpaid and overworked: a border agency that frequently struggles with massive delays in people entering or exiting the country: and that's before we get into the counter-terrorism and other Home Office responsibilities. But the Home Secretary, a dishonest, incompetent, self-serving lamprey of a woman, has decided that the only issue she cares about is scaring off people who are already desperate enough to risk their lives in a small boat, using a plan her officials have made clear to her is possibly illegal and probably a waste of time.

Remember when we had a government?

[Spockydog]

nvm

Edited March 8 by Spockydog

[Gaston de Foix]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I hate to say it, but politically this isn't a terrible plan. I've heard a few people I thought were a bit right wing, but slightly normal, saying its a great idea. 

I want to pursue this point, because I think it's important to disaggregate whether this is politically savvy from whether it is an effective and principled plan (obviously not). 

Rishi and the rest of the gang obviously think it is, because one of his 5 priorities is to STOP THE BOATS.  Either Rishi thinks that he can actually stop the boats and the public will reward him at the general election, or he will get credit for trying and be able to successfully blame others (judges, Labour, civil servants) and help the Tories save seats. 

Rishi is a numbers/data guy, and I'm sure the polling supports that claim.  The Tories are polling at rock-bottom, and any issue that polarizes the electorate into us v. them will bring some reluctant voters home.  

BUT I still think this is a political mistake.  It's the Trump Paradox at work.  Trump ran in 2016 on immigration.  His single most high-profile promise was to build the wall.  He didn't build the wall.  Ann Coulter aside, his supporters didn't punish him.  Why? Because the Wall is not real to those voters.  It doesn't impact them one way or the other.  They can swallow Trump's lies without flinching.  They just like the coded bigotry behind the claim.  Trump ran on immigration in 2020 and won virtually all those voters again.  If Trump had actually built the wall, and actually implemented the restrictive immigration system he promised he might have lost some of those voters.  

By introducing this legislation, Rishi is converting his political opportunism into a test of managerial competence.  But the voters won't reward managerial competence.  He will probably get the numbers down because he's throwing money at the problem and hiring more staff.  But the way this will be argued at the 2025 GE won't be - should we stop the boats? It will be did he keep his promise? 

This, btw, is why the Tories have been promising from 2010 onwards to leave the ECHR and introduce a British Bill of Rights without ever doing so.  They don't want the win.  They want the issue.  

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, Gaston de Foix said:

They don't want the win.  They want the issue.  

Aye. If they didn't want the issue, they'd open up some legal routes for asylum seekers. AFAIK, currently, there are very few legitimate channels where asylum seekers can apply to come to Britain.

[Spockydog]

 

 

[Heartofice]

Lineker does understand the rules right? Like he knows what he can and can't say on twitter while he works for the BBC. He can quite easily stop working for the BBC any time he wants, there are plenty of other stations that will take him.  Mark 'Chappers' Chapman is a much better MotD host anyway, I'd prefer to watch him any day of the week. 

[mormont]

The whole Lineker episode is just another example of how the right only pretend to care about free speech and cancel culture.

[Spockydog]

 

 

[Spockydog]

He's not wrong. 

 

 

[Heartofice]

28 minutes ago, mormont said:

The whole Lineker episode is just another example of how the right only pretend to care about free speech and cancel culture.

Funny the same people who deny cancel culture even exists and is just  ‘consequence culture’, claiming that you can’t expect to be able say whatever you want if it’s affecting your employer… suddenly become free speech warriors when it’s something they agree with.

[Gaston de Foix]

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Funny the same people who deny cancel culture even exists and is just  ‘consequence culture’, claiming that you can’t expect to be able say whatever you want if it’s affecting your employer… suddenly become free speech warriors when it’s something they agree with.

In what way does Gary Linekar expressing an opinion affect the BBC? It shouldn't.  The only reason it would is that that the Tories are vindictive bastards who either want to co-opt the Beeb, neuter it, or dismantle it depending on their mood.  

He's a sports commentator with 100% name recognition in the UK.  Everyone knows that (i) he's expressing his own opinions; (Ii) his opinions are not that of the BBC; (Iii) he's not even a sports journalist let alone a political one. 

I understand why the BBC has a policy that its employees are not to express political opinions publicly.  But at this point any forced recantation or deletion will not exactly unscramble the omelette will it? 

It's not a smart thing to do, though.  The moment you compare anyone to the Nazis in any respect in a discussion the thinking stops and the shouting starts.  You aren't going to persuade anyone that way.   

Edited March 8 by Gaston de Foix

[Spockydog]

To be clear, the BBC has a policy that its 'news' employees are not to express political opinions (tho, Kuenssberg, lol). That restriction does not apply to actors or sports presenters.

 

Edited March 8 by Spockydog