Theresa May - Dead woman walking?

[Cricko]

Labour have to sort their lives out and they seem lost atm but kick these self serving Tory ****s out of office.

 

[Bielzibubz]

In the end, both of us are disenfranchised so we, for the moment, can have no more than a spectator's view on the British political scene. Notwithstanding, it doesn't prevent both of us from having passionate views concerning the direction of the 'old country!'
You know how much I detest this present government and with the Liberal Democrats resurrection hardly apparent, where does ones vote go????.............extreme right or extreme left is not the choice I would wish to make............if I had the chance. Like it or not, the UK has always tended towards conservatism..........with a small 'c' I'd never see it as a place for some kind of socialist revolution. I can understand why the Labour Party has moved in the way it has; in reaction to the conservative liberal economics of Blair and as a reaction to the unfairness and inequalities we find in today's society.
Perhaps it's just me but there is something deeply worrying at the heart of today's Labour Party. It's not just the anti-semetic problems. (please don't tell me this is just the media hype....... although I would accept they are more than willing to accentuate the situation). The problem exists...........a jewish Labour MP with a police escort to the conference? All party's usually accept a number of independent oddballs, accepting the policy of being broad churches. This no longer seems to be the case in the new Labour Party. The new millitant base, enboldened by the facilitation offered at the conference, appear keen to eradicate those not prepared to follow the strict party line. After Frank Field it's now Chris Leslie and I assume that's just a start. I have no problem with constituents wanting to change a bad, corrupt or lazy MP but for me changing your MP just because he doesn't follow the hard party line, is a worrying development. Who are these people (activists) making these decisions? A few fresh faces drawn in by the new approach of Corbyn, that's for sure. Yet, I would wager that most are hard line extremists that have moved into the party from (I don't know the new names) but old socialist worker and millitant groups..............do these factions now exist still, outside the Labour Party?
Although, clearly, there needs to be a change in direction in direction to reconnect the electorate with its politicians, I do feel there has to be a degree of pragmatism in that movement. I fear a doctrinaire autocratic (collective!) approach to our problems will ultimately do more harm than good.
I think the liklihood of a majority Labour government (in its present form) is remote in the present UK political set up. I can't imagine the tory election strategy being as incompetent as last time and nor will Corbyn get such an easy ride, rest capable of facing both ways and appealing to everyone, especially the important middle ground..........when his policies come under the magnifying glass. I just find the british political scene so depressing at the moment.

Very succinctly put. That's more or less what I've been saying for donkies on here and on other threads for months, just not so concisely.

Hard line leftist Socialism the likes of which JC supports is dead as a political force and as an acceptable alternative to the Tory party and conservatism in general and has been for many many years. No matter how much you want to dress it up and spin it and no matter how awful the current crop of incumbents are the voting public do not want to be taken back to the dark old days of mid 70's and that is exactly where they fear they'll be taken. There is a very good reason hard left militant Socialism doesn't and hasn't worked throughout Europe for many many years.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

FWIW,the problem Labour have, IMO. Is that a large number of the PLP have never accepted JC as leader nor the change in membership of the PLP,which at over 500,000 strong has the biggest mass membership of any Socialist party in Europe.

The Tories,on the other hand,are divided in Parliament and outside on their approach to Brexit.

No, it's not just about JC, there seem to be sinister things going on behind the scenes in the Labour Party at the moment, with or without his consent. There wasn't such a reaction, as I remember, when Michael Foot took over the leadership...............but there was one hell of a drubbing at the following GE. You're right to point out the increase in membership, however, what needs to be looked at is exactly where these new members have come from. As I said earlier, a number are drawn by the 'new politics' of Corbyn, although I have my suspicions that the majority are from the hard left.........people who a number of years ago, would never have been allowed into the party.
Going back to what I said earlier I don't think Labour will get an overall majority. So I went down to work again with a question buzzing around my head. Who on earth would support a minority Labour government under Corbyn?????...............not the Lib Dems, that's for sure. I got a possible answer! .............and I'm not being flippant here. Labour could take a leaf out of May's book and turn to Northern Ireland. Could the 7 Sinn Féin MP's be persuaded to take up their seats in Westminster on the promise of some kind of deal? (can't imagine what that could be!) Reckon Northern Ireland Republicans and Democratic Unionists together could liven up the Chamber a little!

 

[KevinJH]

Going back to what I said earlier I don't think Labour will get an overall majority. So I went down to work again with a question buzzing around my head. Who on earth would support a minority Labour government under Corbyn?????...............not the Lib Dems, that's for sure.

If, God help us, that scenario did arise, I wouldn't be surprised to see the SNP jump on board with 'em. They'd do anything to get their prime directive from Tracey Ullman Ms. Sturgeon back on the agenda.....

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

If, God help us, that scenario did arise, I wouldn't be surprised to see the SNP jump on board with 'em. They'd do anything to get their prime directive from Tracey Ullman Ms. Sturgeon back on the agenda.....

Surely they would demand a second independence referendum as a condition for their support, Something I’m not sure Corbyn would support. He needs Scottish votes to gain power.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

If, God help us, that scenario did arise, I wouldn't be surprised to see the SNP jump on board with 'em. They'd do anything to get their prime directive from Tracey Ullman Ms. Sturgeon back on the agenda.....

Oh yes! I'd forgotten all about the Scots Nats...........yep, very likely bedfellows, no matter how much they hate the Labour Party.

 

[KevinJH]

And that's the rub of it, politicians aren't above jumping in to bed with anyone as long as it serves their own needs..... no matter which party is involved.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

To be ‘fully entitled’ you have to have the right paperwork. The Windrush issue is that since the postwar Labour government began the Windrush invitations neither they, or any subsequent government, either sufficiently helped those people to get the right documentation or maintained contact to ensure that they did. As a result, many never formalised their nationality or obtained a passport, or any other official documentation in many cases. They were legally invited but had no evidence to prove that in future years. That is quite different from illegal immigrants, who were not invited and have no right to be here and for whom the hostile environment (a poor choice of words for basically making it hard for illegal immigrants to game the system and have things they are not entitled to) was intended. On paper, as a result, there was no evidence upon which benefits to which Windrush people should have been entitled could be given to them. That is a collective failure of government over many generations which the hostile environment helped to expose.

I'm not trying to make party political capital on this issue.FWIW, I wouldn't dispute Amber Rudd's claim on C4 news the other night that about half the Windrush deportations occurred on Labour's watch. (She didn't specify but I assume she meant during the Blair/Brown years).At least however she had the courage to resign for what happened on her watch.Others ,including the PM ,haven't owned up to their own responsibility.

You clearly understand the issues around providing proof of residence and the difference between the Windrush generation (and their children) and illegal immigrants.However,IMO,more should have been done to guarantee the rights of the Windrush generation, to whom all Britons owe a huge debt.
You might want to have a look at Clair Wills's excellent "Lovers and Strangers":An immigrant history of Post-War Britain, published before the Windrush scandal broke.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Oh yes! I'd forgotten all about the Scots Nats...........yep, very likely bedfellows, no matter how much they hate the Labour Party.

Labour party voters with long memories, will remember that it was the Scots Nats. who voted against Jim Callaghan's Labour government in a vote of confidence in 1979, thus letting Thatcher's Tory government into power..

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Labour party voters with long memories, will remember that it was the Scots Nats. who voted against Jim Callaghan's Labour government in a vote of confidence in 1979, thus letting Thatcher's Tory government into power..

Most Labour Party voters don’t even know who Jim Callaghan is!

 

[rigsby]

Labour party voters with long memories, will remember that it was the Scots Nats. who voted against Jim Callaghan's Labour government in a vote of confidence in 1979, thus letting Thatcher's Tory government into power..

I think you’ll find it was mountains of rubbish in our streets and the fact we couldn’t even bury the dead, Years of abuse by power obsessed union officials lead to Thatcherism.

As you studied History you will know it always reapeats itself.

Our Naive youth who follow Corbiyn will end up suffering years of Borism.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just a small clarification there TUIB. Amber Rudd didn’t resign for what happened on her watch - quite clearly the vast majority of the Windrush issues happened well before her watch, with the critical mistakes happening right at the very beginning with the initial arrivals postwar. She resigned because she inadvertently misled the commons by giving incorrect information, which is a resignation issue for Ministers, because an official made a mistake in the briefing they put together for her.

What happened on Amber’s watch was the long history of mistakes came to light, which is a good thing, otherwise the issue would still be out there and not be being dealt with. Theresa May also didn’t need to resign, as her policy of making it harder for illegal immigrants to game or bypass the system is also not wrong and contributed to uncovering this issue.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Amusing story from the Independent concerning the release of the Tory Party's policy on immigration post-Brexit and who wants to claim credit for it.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-brexit-theresa-may-sajid-javid-a8564261.html


This unashamedly goes to the heart of what Brexit is all about. May is not going to let Javid get the glory by allowing him to announce it............she wants that for herself. Whatever deal or no-deal comes out of Brexit, this is the crowning glory, being seen as the person who halts mass immigration into the UK. She needs this to defend herself against Johnson and in the end, whatever the consequences of Brexit, she clearly believes this is going to be a great vote winner.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I wouldn’t get excited about that article. ‘Labour supporting newspaper gets anonymous quotes from two anonymous conservative MPs who most likely don’t support the government’s position and/or have a grudge against the leadership’. Hold the front page! This happens in all parties, including Labour, all the time and is just stirring. Clearly, uncontrolled immigration was an issue for some in the referendum and as the person in overall charge of Brexit and taking all the hits, the PM would want (wouldn’t we all?) to be seen to deliver.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Most Labour Party voters don’t even know who Jim Callaghan is!

Or was since he died in 2005.

 

[OldBlueLady]

This is what is worrying for May and co, the fact that Corbyn and co are promising plenty which the gullible are being lured into believing to secure their vote. Yet to see anything to convince me how they're going to pay for what they're shouting about. And that is the whole problem with this country and its politics - Labour dish it out to all and sundry, and the Conservative try and rein the finances in.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think you’ll find it was mountains of rubbish in our streets and the fact we couldn’t even bury the dead, Years of abuse by power obsessed union officials lead to Thatcherism.

As you studied History you will know it always reapeats itself.

Our Naive youth who follow Corbiyn will end up suffering years of Borism.

I remember that period very well thanks.Let's just say that your reading of modern British politcal history is not quite the same as mine.

The quotation you allude to is from Marx."History always repeats itself.The first time as tragedy then as farce." from
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon


Boris will never become PM,though JC might.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I should also say that while I have stated that the critical Windrush mistakes were made at the beginning, and then not spotted or fixed by subsequent governments, I think it would be harsh to be overly critical of the Labour government at that time either. Clearly, in the immediate aftermath of WW2 it was a hugely difficult time with many, many very critical issues to deal with. Mistakes or oversights were inevitable. What makes government so hard is that, like the medical profession, honest mistakes can have profound implications for people. We can not prevent mistakes, and we shouldn’t constantly seek to find scapegoats unless those people are at the very epicentre of original decisions that cause issues and knowingly made poor judgments. What matters far more is that when issues are uncovered they are resolved and compensation unequivocally and without reservation - as is happening with Windrush. Sadly, this won’t always happen in time to help everyone affected but nobody understands or feels this more keenly than those who might (with the benefit of hindsight) have been able to help sooner or do things differently.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Just a small clarification there TUIB. Amber Rudd didn’t resign for what happened on her watch - quite clearly the vast majority of the Windrush issues happened well before her watch, with the critical mistakes happening right at the very beginning with the initial arrivals postwar. She resigned because she inadvertently misled the commons by giving incorrect information, which is a resignation issue for Ministers, because an official made a mistake in the briefing they put together for her.

What happened on Amber’s watch was the long history of mistakes came to light, which is a good thing, otherwise the issue would still be out there and not be being dealt with. Theresa May also didn’t need to resign, as her policy of making it harder for illegal immigrants to game or bypass the system is also not wrong and contributed to uncovering this issue.

Technically, you're right about the reason for AR's resignation, of course.But there's no doubt that the toxic atmosphere caused by the Windrush scandal and the disclosures about the "hostile enviroment" for illegal immigrants, hastened her departure.

While I agree with you that it's a "good thing" that "the long history of mistakes" came to light", I'm not at all sure I agree with either of your conclusions about Mrs May.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

TUIB do you think it is right that genuinely illegal immigrants can stay in the UK unchallenged, or access services or benefits to which they are not entitled?