The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[snowychap]

56 minutes ago, blandy said:

Does it? Ok. I’ll clarify then. I think hoofing out convicted criminals, following due process is one aspect of their job. Them tweeting that they have hoofed 14 out is nothing to boast about  - statistically it’s such a small number as to be insignificant to anyone but those involved. But nevertheless if a Lithuanian convicted fraudster is deported that’s fine and good by me.

The second thing, linking hoofing out criminals and linking that to asylum seekers is dog-whistling. That’s not fine by me. It’s yet another sign of the home office being horrible, of Patel being horrible, just another day in Toryland.

so foreign crims- good riddance*, home office - sort your act out, Patel - grow a heart and a brain and a conscience.

 

*there may be some circs where deportation is not the right course of action.

But that's really the point.

Your response wasn't as full as this new post even though I think there are problems with this new post, too.

You concentrated on the '14 criminals' and repeated the idea that the Home Office has been 'historically bad at deporting foreing criminals' which is a common theme of (not just) the Tory party (they blame it on 'activist' lawyers, Hooman Rights and so on - you blame it on their incompetence) and ignored their connecting it with the asylum system and making comment about 'frustrated by legal claims' (which really means not acting according to the law).

Why I think your post shows that this is successful dog-whistling is that it obviously hasn't only appealed to those who would come running at any old whistle and lump all of these things together because they don't know any better or don't care but that part of it has got to someone for whom this kind of thing wouldn't obviously carry appeal and it has got them initially responding with a level of support putting aside important parts of the tweet.

Yes, you may have included a caveat of 'fairly' in your initial post and this may now have been more fleshed out in this subsequent post with a mention of asylum and 'grow a heart' but I think that those who posted that first tweet would have been well-heartened by your initial response and would see it as even more successful than they'd hoped.

As you finally acknowledge, there may be some circumstances where deportation is not the right course of action. Given that you've now shown some skepticism about the second half of the tweet, might it not also be sensible to show some skepticism about the first half, too? Were they 'dangerous'? What is 'abusing our values'? Was deportation the right course of action in these cases?

That the first part has appealed to you and not elicited any skepticism (though you've added in caveats, this doesn't amount to skepticism about the 'facts' as presented) and you initially responded without any comment about the second part suggests that yes, the dog whistle was very effective.

Edited October 11, 2020 by snowychap

[snowychap]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

The really important part of that article is this:

Quote

On Saturday the Law Society confirmed it sent correspondence last month on the attack to the Home Office and Ministry of Justice.

Patel appears not only to have ignored its concerns but doubled down on her attacks against immigration lawyers.

Last Sunday, almost a month after the knife attack, Patel used her speech at the Conservative party conference to target “do-gooders” and “lefty lawyers,” claiming those who represented asylum seekers were “defending the indefensible”.

Two days later, in his keynote speech, Boris Johnson went even further, claiming the entire criminal justice system was “being hamstrung by lefty human rights lawyers”. It remains unclear to what extent, if any, the PM was aware of the knife attack.

I think this really ought to be taken in to consideration when reacting to any communication on the subject from this government or whoever it hires to send out tweets on behalf of it or the Home Office.

[StefanAVFC]

Lefty lawyers

Lefty teachers

Lefty doctors 

Lefty nurses 

It's almost as if those in a position of responsible have brains  

[Davkaus]

I could see this being considered petty, but there have been fines for individuals and 4 figure fines for businesses breaking the curfew by a matter of 3-4 minutes.

Quote

 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock was last night accused of breaking his own Covid curfew by drinking in a Commons bar beyond 10pm – where he made a crass joke about the Government's test and trace failings. 

Mr Hancock arrived at the bar just before a 9.40pm vote, ordered a glass of white wine and announced: 'The drinks are on me – but Public Health England are in charge of the payment methodology so I will not be paying anything.' 

His ill-conceived joke came after he had tried to explain to the Commons why the quango had lost nearly 16,000 positive coronavirus tests – a fiasco which Labour claimed had put 'lives at risk'. 

A senior Tory MP told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock remained in the Smoking Room bar until at least 10.25pm, despite Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle insisting that Commons venues must abide by the same 10pm drink-up-and-leave curfew as all English pubs. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8827027/Matt-Hancock-makes-tasteless-Covid-test-joke-Commons-bar-joined-MPs-flouting-10pm-curfew.html

 

I eagerly await equal enforcement of the law.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Davkaus

[bickster]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thanks for bringing Esterson's comments to my attention. I would recommend people read this thread:

He's doing alright for once but The Good Law project have been on the case for ages. He's taking his lead from them I think

 

[markavfc40]

12 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Playing devils advocate a bit here but, two thirds is more than the government is currently contributing isn't it?

The Govt currently pay 60% with employers asked to make up the remaining 20%.

I could be wrong here but didn't the government back in March pay 80% with the employer invited, but not forced, to make up the other 20%. This was then tapered out from August with the government paying 80% and employer paying NI contributions then from September the government paying 60%.

My issue is there is an increasing lack of jobs with an increasing amount of unemployed so to suggest that someone who works in hospitality, who loses a third of their pay, goes out and finds another job in the current climate, when the line of work they are in has ceased, is wishful thinking I would say.

As I said many of these people are struggling to keep their heads above water as it is earning minimum wage and to see a third of that go is going to see many of them drown and as these northern metro mayors have said the government needs to do more for these people. It is good to see they are going to fight for them as there has once again been a lack of standing up for those already with the least.

Edited October 11, 2020 by markavfc40

[OutByEaster?]

6 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

I could be wrong here but didn't the government back in March pay 80% with the employer invited, but not forced, to make up the other 20%. This was then tapered out from August with the government paying 80% and employer paying NI contributions then from September the government paying 60%.

That's my understanding too (and indeed the situation I'm living in). The government are actually increasing the amount they're currently paying from 60% to 66% - it's the employers contribution that's being waived, with the worker feeling the pinch. However, for me I would literally have been losing my job tomorrow without this scheme - at the moment I work for a company that are looking at the legal definitions of how companies qualify for this money and if we do, then the company hopefully get another few months closer to a time when events recover and the gap to bridge between no income and a viable operating future becomes more manageable. Without this money, there's every chance that November would see thousands of redundancies across the hospitality industry. Given a choice between two thirds and nothing, I'll take two thirds - there are lots of people talking about six month unpaid sabbaticals in order to hold onto their jobs - this bridges that to some extent.

Quote

As I said many of these people are struggling to keep their heads above water as it is earning minimum wage and to see a third of that go is going to see many of them drown and as these northern metro mayors have said the government needs to do more for these people. It is good to see they are going to fight for them as there has once again been a lack of standing up for those already with the least.

It's even more complex in that the vast majority of people within the Hospitality industry on minimum wage are also either on zero hour or casual contractual terms - they're not salaried and the starting income they have isn't a living wage - if you work an average of ten hours a week, the difference between 80% and 100% isn't the defining factor of whether you can pay your rent. The casual workers have simply been thrown overboard in a lot of cases while zero hours workers are being supported by government based on averages of their previous earnings. Their problem isn't so much that their hourly wage isn't enough at two thirds, it's that they very often don't have the history of hours worked to give them a starting point that amounts to much of an income anyway. Where they're really going to suffer is Christmas - for Chefs and waiting staff, that hugely busy Christmas period is what gets them through January, February and March and it's just not going to happen this year. It's a horrible, horrible situation for thousands of people. 

I'm not quite sure on what the actions of the mayors will end up being - it's great that they're highlighting the hardships ahead for those on low earnings, but I'm not quite sure how that's translating into what those workers can expect in three week's time.

 

[markavfc40]

17 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

That's my understanding too (and indeed the situation I'm living in). The government are actually increasing the amount they're currently paying from 60% to 66% - it's the employers contribution that's being waived......

Scott I genuinely feel for you mate and what you will be going through on a personal level.

I think my issue really with this pay someone 80%, two thirds, 60% is that the lower down the scale you are, in terms of what you earn, the bigger impact that will have. On 40k a year 80% still leaves you 32k, two thirds on 27k, 60% on 24k. If you went into this on 16k a year and now lose a third of that you are going to be getting under 11k a year.

I realise people often live to their means so losing 8k for someone on 40k is going to have a big impact but I would like to have seen more help for those already with the least and perhaps the minimum anyone would get on furlough would be the equivalent to minimum wage. Someone on 40k on furlough may mean struggling to make a car payment, someone on minimum wage it may mean them struggling to put food on the table, heat the home during winter.

The points you make about zero hours contracts etc I agree with 100%.

As for what these mayors can actually do I am unsure myself but I know they have said they will take legal action. 

[Davkaus]

People on higher incomes typically have a higher proportion as savings, and will have extra flexibility compared to much lower earners, too. If I were furloughed, I could get a few month's reprieve with a mortgage holiday and lower my outgoings significantly. 

[HanoiVillan]

Typically, the government are shutting down debate on food standards in Parliament:

Brexit: Anger as ministers use obscure rule to deny MPs a vote on blocking chlorinated chicken imports

'An obscure rule is to be used to deny MPs a crucial vote aimed at blocking imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef, sparking fresh fears about food quality after Brexit.

Ministers are facing fierce criticism over their tactic to defeat an attempt to give powers to a new watchdog – amid suspicions that future trade deals, particularly with the US, will water down food and animal welfare standards. 

The move to prevent debate on a key amendment expected to be backed by Tory rebels in a Commons showdown on Monday has been condemned as “unbelievable” by the peer who introduced it in the Lords.

The tactic was also attacked by the Conservative chair of the Commons environment committee, who told The Independent: “The Commons is wrongly being denied a say on a technicality.”

Neil Parish added: “The government should allow a vote. These are really important matters for the future of food and farming.”

Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union, urged MPs to find a way to secure “binding commitments that strengthen scrutiny of trade deals and safeguard our animal welfare and environmental standards”.

Ministers will dodge the vote by arguing that giving increased powers to the new Trade and Agriculture Commission – currently temporary and advisory only – will impose an extra cost.

They will argue that goes beyond the powers of the Lords and so refuse a money resolution – preventing the amendment to the Agriculture Bill being called.

[...]

In the Commons on Thursday, Ms Truss criticised a “blanket ban” on food products not complying with British farming regulations, telling MPs: “I want to make sure our farmers are able to continue with their high standards, but I don't want to stop developing countries exporting their goods to us.”

The controversy comes after Jamie Oliver stepped up his warning of an influx of cheap food if ministers are able to prevent “proper parliamentary scrutiny”, saying: “I don’t like the smell of it.”

“All we’re asking for is debate in Parliament and not a backdoor to do a quick deal. We’re asking for honest, clear, lawful debate,” the celebrity chef told the BBC. 

The US has made opening the door to its lower-grade agricultural goods a red line. Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, said it must be part of any deal, during a visit in January.'

more on link: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-chlorinated-chicken-eu-mps-boris-johnson-b914047.html

This US trade deal, if it ever happens, has the potential to be quite a potent wedge issue for the opposition IMO. Easy, clear message? Yep - chlorinated chicken and the horrors of American industrial farming. Outer parts of the Tory party already unhappy and kicking up a fuss? Yep - the NFU already fuming, and pressure telling on a Commons committee chair. Room for populist celebrity campaigning? Yep - Jamie Oliver already on it. It may end up being that Nancy Pelosi and/or Joe Biden actually do them a favour by not entertaining the deal in the first place.

[Davkaus]

Do you think Tory voters realise they were conned yet? Did you vote for anything that wasn't a lie?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1226292/brexit-news-boris-johnson-trade-deal-US-chlorinated-chicken-jeremy-corbyn-labour-party

 

Quote

 

Corbyn’s scaremongering DASHED: Chlorinated chicken will be made illegal vow Tories

BORIS Johnson has finally put an end to outgoing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s relentless rhetoric about a US trade deal involving chlorinated chicken by banning it from ever entering Britain.

Chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef will not be allowed as part of any trade deal formed with the UK post-Brexit, Mr Johnson’s Government has revealed to the BBC, which puts an end to Mr Corbyn’s claims it would be part of the deal pursued between the Tory leader and US President Donald Trump. Environment Secretary Theresa Villiers told the BBC’s Countryfile in an interview that the only thing the UK will take from the EU during their time as a member state is the legislation on such imports. She said: “We will not be importing chlorinated-chicken. We will not be importing hormone-treated beef. Both of those are illegal under EU law, which we are importing into our domestic system.

 

Brexit means bullshit.

[Davkaus]

We have a home secretary who's so keen to stick it to those **** asylum seekers, even Nige thinks she's going a bit far. Although "Better" does suggest it's an option he'd consider. 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Davkaus

[Genie]

12 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

We have a home secretary who's so keen to stick it to those **** asylum seekers, even Nige thinks she's going a bit far. Although "Better" does suggest it's an option he'd consider. 

 

It comes to something when Farage thinks you’ve gone a bit far. 
Out of the EU we don’t need to worry about things like that anyway do we? We can just send ‘em back. It’s what people voted for.

[snowychap]

34 minutes ago, Genie said:

Out of the EU we don’t need to worry about things like that anyway do we? We can just send ‘em back.

If there is no deal on migration, then we won't be able to 'send 'em back' to EU countries after Jan 1.

We can only do it currently because, even though we are no longer in the EU, the transition period applies.

Edited October 12, 2020 by snowychap

[Genie]

36 minutes ago, snowychap said:

If there is no deal on migration, then we won't be able to 'send 'em back' to EU countries after Jan 1.

We can only do it currently because, even though we are no longer in the EU, the transition period applies.

To be honest I disguised my flippant reply too well, apologies for that. A couple of weeks ago one of the MP’s asked Boris in PMQ’s what was going to be done to stop those making the trip and he said that once the UK was fully out of the EU’s control there would be new laws written so they’d be immediately sent back.

Obviously that’s a load of bollocks, as you say, we’d need an agreement with wherever they were going to be returned to.

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

To be honest I disguised my flippant reply too well, apologies for that. A couple of weeks ago one of the MP’s asked Boris in PMQ’s what was going to be done to stop those making the trip and he said that once the UK was fully out of the EU’s control there would be new laws written so they’d be immediately sent back.

Obviously that’s a load of bollocks, as you say, we’d need an agreement with wherever they were going to be returned to.

Ah, sorry.

[Xann]

Quote

This will kill people. Better to return illegals, not drown them. We are led by idiots.

Don't forget traitors, like yourself Nige.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

We have a home secretary who's so keen to stick it to those **** asylum seekers, even Nige thinks she's going a bit far. Although "Better" does suggest it's an option he'd consider.

 

2 hours ago, Genie said:

It comes to something when Farage thinks you’ve gone a bit far.

I think everyone knows this already on some level, but Farage obviously doesn't *actually* think the idea 'goes too far', he is simply positioning himself as a more competent opponent of immigration, so that he can capitalise on that should he decide to get involved in another political vehicle in the future.

The 'nets' idea is obviously never going to happen, both because the Tories wouldn't be able to organise it and won't actually commit to the effort involved, and because it would be completely pointless. There would obviously have to be enormous gaps in said nets for things like *cross-channel ferries* and *cruise ships*, so dinghies would simply switch into shipping lanes, making life more dangerous for everybody but doing nothing to halt the flow (what little of it there is, and really the numbers on this are being blown out of all proportion).

The Tories are simply happy to have this 'blue-sky thinking' leaking out because it is chum in the water for their frothing mad base, and challenges the prominence of less favourable stories like the bungled pandemic response and the coming economic crisis in the headlines.

Edited October 12, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[Davkaus]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

The 'nets' idea is obviously never going to happen, both because the Tories wouldn't be able to organise it and won't actually commit to the effort involved, and because it would be completely pointless. There would obviously have to be enormous gaps in said nets for things like *cross-channel ferries* and *cruise ships*, so dinghies would simply switch into shipping lanes, making life more dangerous for everybody but doing nothing to halt the flow (what little of it there is, and really the numbers on this are being blown out of all proportion).

 

What about sharks? Could we put loads of sharks in the channel?

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Davkaus said:

We have a home secretary who's so keen to stick it to those **** asylum seekers, even Nige thinks she's going a bit far. Although "Better" does suggest it's an option he'd consider. 

 

There are an awful lot of holes in that Nets plan.