UK Politics Thread X: Immigration, Housing, Strikes oh my

[Celritannia]

Making out the refugees to be a danger to our society is very similar to the Third Reich making out the Jews and other people were a danger to their society.

Authoritarian conservative / reactionary maybe, fascist or nazi perhaps.... the lines between the two on cultural / ethnic grounds is loose. Economically: no.

No one was saying anything about economics, this is all about the language the Tories used over the Migrants.

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Authoritarian conservative / reactionary maybe, fascist or nazi perhaps.... the lines between the two on cultural / ethnic grounds is loose. Economically: no.

No one was saying anything about economics, this is all about the language the Tories used over the Migrants.

Oh. Nevermind then. But yes, Tories are by definition reactionary!

[Saor Alba]

Okay so they're still not denying him a right to free speech.

They have, they have practically told him he cannot have political opinions while working for the BBC.

Which is not an infringement on his freedom of speech. An employer has every right to punish their employees for their behaviour online.

[Saor Alba]

No one was saying anything about economics, this is all about the language the Tories used over the Migrants.

Oh. Nevermind then. But yes, Tories are by definition reactionary!

Why do you always add a subject to your messages

[Celritannia]

They have, they have practically told him he cannot have political opinions while working for the BBC.

Which is not an infringement on his freedom of speech. An employer has every right to punish their employees for their behaviour online.

And what exactly has Gary done that warrants this punishment?

There have been sex offenders within the BBC that had less of a punishment.

[Hirota]

Making out the refugees to be a danger to our society is very similar to the Third Reich making out the Jews and other people were a danger to their society.

I've already been critical about the messaging surrounding that. I'm aware of the stories of refugees being a danger - the protests in Liverpool which were discussed on here earlier. Yet, it remains true that employing instance of historical revisionism, unwittingly minimising the uniquely barbaric crimes of the Nazi regime by comparing them to an immigration control bill proposed by a democratic nation is profoundly daft.

Still, it's interesting how much certain cancel culture warriors are suddenly defending free speech. Welcome to the party!

[Saor Alba]

Which is not an infringement on his freedom of speech. An employer has every right to punish their employees for their behaviour online.

And what exactly has Gary done that warrants this punishment?

There have been sex offenders within the BBC that had less of a punishment.

There were individuals that committed sexual offences, admitted to it or were found guilty in court, and the BBC kept them on? I don't know if I believe that but I wouldn't put it past them.

Gary Lineker insinuated that the government were like the Nazis. The BBC is supposed to be independent and impartial. Sorry but what he said was not right and incredibly offensive.

[Hirota]

They have, they have practically told him he cannot have political opinions while working for the BBC.

Which is not an infringement on his freedom of speech. An employer has every right to punish their employees for their behaviour online.

He's not really an employee of the BBC - he's technically a self-employed contractor.

It's a murky grey area.

[Celritannia]

Making out the refugees to be a danger to our society is very similar to the Third Reich making out the Jews and other people were a danger to their society.

I've already been critical about the messaging surrounding that. I'm aware of the stories of refugees being a danger - the protests in Liverpool which were discussed on here earlier. Yet, it remains true that employing instance of historical revisionism, unwittingly minimising the uniquely barbaric crimes of the Nazi regime by comparing them to an immigration control bill proposed by a democratic nation is profoundly daft.

Still, it's interesting how much certain cancel culture warriors are suddenly defending free speech. Welcome to the party!

We are just focusing on language, not action. So it is not wrong to say there are similarities. Unless you are unable to separate words from acts.

I mean, I am not personally part of any form of cancel culture.

[Saor Alba]

We are just focusing on language, not action. So it is not wrong to say there are similarities. Unless you are unable to separate words from acts.

It absolutely is crossing a line to compare a democratic government to the Nazis.

[Celritannia]

And what exactly has Gary done that warrants this punishment?

There have been sex offenders within the BBC that had less of a punishment.

There were individuals that committed sexual offences, admitted to it or were found guilty in court, and the BBC kept them on? I don't know if I believe that but I wouldn't put it past them.

Gary Lineker insinuated that the government were like the Nazis. The BBC is supposed to be independent and impartial. Sorry but what he said was not right and incredibly offensive.

Gary Lineker said the comparisons between certain speeches were like the nazis.
Yes, the BBC is supposed to be impartial, but did Gary Liniker say this on any BBC show?

Offensive how? The same language the is degrading migrants is the same language that was used to degrade the Jews.

[Celritannia]

We are just focusing on language, not action. So it is not wrong to say there are similarities. Unless you are unable to separate words from acts.

It absolutely is crossing a line to compare a democratic government to the Nazis.

I thought you said the UK was not democratic because Scotland never supported to be a part of it?

Anyhow, it is not democratic when it is breaching the ECHR and maritime law, both of which the UK has agreed on, and were part of their inceptions.

Also, let's remember the Nazis were democratically elected with racist and xenophobic policies in place, but I digress.

[The Archregimancy]

The BBC has now been forced to announce that there will be no in-studio presenters or pundits for MOTD tomorrow evening; presumably there will only be highlight match commentary and post-match interviews.

Well, would have included post-match interviews - except that senior players are believed to have contacted the PFA to state that they'll refuse to give interviews in solidarity with Lineker.

I can't help but think that the better solution for everyone would have been for the BBC to slap Lineker on the wrist, and then ride out the media storm for the 2-3 days it would have taken for the story to disappear. The consequences of the suspension have made senior management look particularly inept; and I'm not entirely sure that the government will be pleased about the direction this is now taking since it seems to be focussing opposition to migrant policy - and the last time the Conservative Party tried to take on those pesky woke lefty footballers (over taking the knee during the Euros), it didn't go particularly well.

[Hirota]

Gary Lineker said the comparisons between certain speeches were like the nazis.

What he actually said was...

Good heavens, this is beyond awful.

In response to a home office video, which honestly was pretty tame, and then in response to a now deleted tweet said...

There is no huge influx.

Which isn't true in proportional terms compared to previous years. Is 45000 dispersed over the entirety of the British Isles a huge amount? no probably not, but it is certainly a significant increase on the few hundred 5 or so years ago.

We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.

Which is also probably untrue, although it seems difficult to separate migration figures out to just "illegal" immigrants

This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language

I'd argue the "most vulnerable people" is a subjective term. I'd argue "the most vulnerable people" are those we have welcomed with open arms - those forced to migrate because of war, for example. I don't think an economic migrant - one which appears to be more likely to use illegal methods to enter a country - is more vulnerable.

that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?

He's out of order to suggest this specific video is particularly exceptional. Most European governments use similar language found in that home office video to talk about curbing the large numbers of migrants.

Maybe he is referring to other rhetoric - some of which I've already mentioned and condemned - but the burden of proof is upon him to demonstrate comparisons, not just claim they exist.

Offensive how? The same language the is degrading migrants is the same language that was used to degrade the Jews.

By saying that, the burden of proof is now also upon you.

Anyhow, it is not democratic when it is breaching the ECHR and maritime law, both of which the UK has agreed on, and were part of their inceptions.

The argument is that they have found a way to comply with ECHR - that will remain to be seen. No doubt it will be challenged in the courts, and it sounds like they are not entirely confident it will win.

I can't help but think that the better solution for everyone would have been for the BBC to slap Lineker on the wrist, and then ride out the media storm for the 2-3 days it would have taken for the story to disappear.

Didn't they try to do that? I'm curious what prompted a change.

and I'm not entirely sure that the government will be pleased about the direction this is now taking since it seems to be focussing opposition to migrant policy.

It probably will go that way, but from where I'm sitting, right now we are spending more time talking about the beeb and dumb comments on Twatter than government policy.

[Forsher]

It would be mildly amusing in the wake of Mr Lineker's comments if the BBC was reduced to having a German host MOTD.

Jurgen Klinsmann, anyone?

Boris Becker needs cash.

If the BBC want to act like petty children by denying someone their individual rights to speak out against a fascist policy, then let them.

But the BBC aren't denying him that right. They are denying him the right to host tomorrow's episode of MOTD. He has every right to voice his political opinions but the BBC have every right to decide whether he hosts one of their shows or not.

You know he's done this [type of "scandal"] before, right? And in those multiple situations the BBC have defended him...

[Forsher]

Neither Shearer not Wright will be appearing out of solidarity. The Striker's Union is bringing our country to a standstill!

even Jermaine "he'll do anything" Jenas.

From Reddit:

Jesus Christ what's he actually done? I think he's bland as fuck as a pundit but this threads really ripping in to him

Best way of putting it is if you were stuck on an Island with corned beef and Jenas..You'd eat Jenas and talk to the corned beef

Coincidentally, I have not been eating corned beef for several days now. It's just sitting there in the fridge, daring me to do something.

[Ostroeuropa]

The BBC isn't apolitical and it's stupid to pretend it is. It serves as a mouthpiece for elites and they throw a tantrum when it criticizes them is all. The notion it's apolitical is there to serve as an excuse to crack down on speech they don't like and is not consistently enforced.

If I was Gary i'd point out this seems like an awful lot like selective enforcement of company policy and tell people to look into Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner v. Kohler Co, which while American law, lays down a precedent based on similar principles (Something courts tend to look into).

[Celritannia]

Gary Lineker said the comparisons between certain speeches were like the nazis.

What he actually said was...

Good heavens, this is beyond awful.

In response to a home office video, which honestly was pretty tame, and then in response to a now deleted tweet said...

There is no huge influx.

Which isn't true in proportional terms compared to previous years. Is 45000 dispersed over the entirety of the British Isles a huge amount? no probably not, but it is certainly a significant increase on the few hundred 5 or so years ago.

We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.

Which is also probably untrue, although it seems difficult to separate migration figures out to just "illegal" immigrants

This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language

I'd argue the "most vulnerable people" is a subjective term. I'd argue "the most vulnerable people" are those we have welcomed with open arms - those forced to migrate because of war, for example. I don't think an economic migrant - one which appears to be more likely to use illegal methods to enter a country - is more vulnerable.

that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?

He's out of order to suggest this specific video is particularly exceptional. Most European governments use similar language found in that home office video to talk about curbing the large numbers of migrants.

Maybe he is referring to other rhetoric - some of which I've already mentioned and condemned - but the burden of proof is upon him to demonstrate comparisons, not just claim they exist.

Offensive how? The same language the is degrading migrants is the same language that was used to degrade the Jews.

By saying that, the burden of proof is now also upon you.

Anyhow, it is not democratic when it is breaching the ECHR and maritime law, both of which the UK has agreed on, and were part of their inceptions.

The argument is that they have found a way to comply with ECHR - that will remain to be seen. No doubt it will be challenged in the courts, and it sounds like they are not entirely confident it will win.

I can't help but think that the better solution for everyone would have been for the BBC to slap Lineker on the wrist, and then ride out the media storm for the 2-3 days it would have taken for the story to disappear.

Didn't they try to do that? I'm curious what prompted a change.

and I'm not entirely sure that the government will be pleased about the direction this is now taking since it seems to be focussing opposition to migrant policy.

It probably will go that way, but from where I'm sitting, right now we are spending more time talking about the beeb and dumb comments on Twatter than government policy.

It is illegal, because how do you stop the boats? The Royal Navy? Coast Guard?
Under Maritime law, and the ECHR, there is a duty to save lives when in danger, which means the migrants must be brought into the UK if they are in danger when attempting to cross the channel, and because the UK left the EU, the UK cannot send them back to the EU. This also does not go into the fact that you cannot send people back to countries where they face the possibility of death.

The UK Gov has backed itself into a corner, all for the xenophobic votes once again, but it's not paying off.

[Forsher]

The BBC isn't apolitical and it's stupid to pretend it is. It serves as a mouthpiece for elites and they throw a tantrum when it criticizes them is all. The notion it's apolitical is there to serve as an excuse to crack down on speech they don't like and is not consistently enforced.

If I was Gary i'd point out this seems like an awful lot like selective enforcement of company policy and tell people to look into Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner v. Kohler Co, which while American law, lays down a precedent based on similar principles (Something courts tend to look into).

We've had three of these scandals in the last fortnight in NZ.

One guy lost both his jobs. Another resigned. The third is still trucking.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/09-03 ... -beautiful

“Another case of a board chair being political has been reported in the community,” my colleague Stewart Sowman-Lund wrote on Slack yesterday, as news broke that Ruth Dyson, former Labour MP and current deputy chair of Fire and Emergency NZ, had faced tricky questions over tweets criticising current National leader Christopher Luxon. This followed Steve Maharey, ex-Labour MP and now chair of the ACC and Pharmac boards, quitting a Stuff column after self-reporting it as being overly political.

It shows the continuing fallout from the Rob Campbell affair, which saw the chair of two more government boards ousted from each after making statements highly critical of newly announced National party policy on LinkedIn. It could be viewed as a mask off moment; as vindicating Act leader David Seymour’s statement in the aftermath that “Rob Campbell is just the tip of the iceberg. Large parts of the Wellington bureaucracy are openly sympathetic to the Left and that is a serious problem.”

Note that we currently have a Labour government in NZ.

Employees of independent state owned entities that are kind of actually more independent contractors is substantially different, of course, to chair of government boards. Furthermore, it turns out NZ's government can't make policy so the gulf is even bigger.

[Vassenor]

Making out the refugees to be a danger to our society is very similar to the Third Reich making out the Jews and other people were a danger to their society.

I've already been critical about the messaging surrounding that. I'm aware of the stories of refugees being a danger - the protests in Liverpool which were discussed on here earlier. Yet, it remains true that employing instance of historical revisionism, unwittingly minimising the uniquely barbaric crimes of the Nazi regime by comparing them to an immigration control bill proposed by a democratic nation is profoundly daft.

Still, it's interesting how much certain cancel culture warriors are suddenly defending free speech. Welcome to the party!

Remember, it’s historical revisionism to remind people that the holocaust didn’t start with people being rounded up and sent to the death camps. It started with dehumanisation and repressive policies against those deemed subhuman.

Also I see we’re quietly ignoring all the holocaust memorial orgs that criticised Braverman for her language choices.

[Vassenor]

Alos it turns out that despite all the bluster from the government, STOP THE BOATS isn’t even close to people’s top concern right now.

Bit hard to be angry about migrants when you’re looking at skyrocketing energy and food bills and the government is more concerned with stoking racism than doing anything about it.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

It's not like the Chair of the BBC got the job for helping Boris Johnson get a loan or anything.

[Hirota]

Remember, it’s historical revisionism to remind people that the holocaust didn’t start with people being rounded up and sent to the death camps. It started with dehumanisation and repressive policies against those deemed subhuman.

Also I see we’re quietly ignoring all the holocaust memorial orgs that criticised Braverman for her language choices.

For you - one of the most prolific spouters of irrational nonsense - of all people to criticise anyone for daft hyperbolic language choices is unsurprisingly hypocritical, Vass. Plus it's nice of you to finally start worrying about anti-semitism since Corbyn was been ostracised for doing so badly on dealing with it and his "language choices."

Still, I've seen the discussions between Joan Salter and Suella Braverman, and I've been critical of the messaging before, and so has other Tory ministers it seems. It needs to be clear who this policy is targeting - it's been previously described as "economic migrants." But the EU has reports on observed "Irregular Border Crossings" where they observed the make up of those irregular border crossings as comprising of Women accounted for fewer than one in ten of the detections, while the share of reported minors fell slightly to around 9 percent of all detections. This is reverse of the make up of refugees coming from an actual war torn country - Ukraine. I don't think there can be any disagreement that the Ukrainians are genuine refugees fleeing a brutal war and Europe has been generous in offering them sanctuary, including the UK (although I think personally we could have done more).

The original report from the EU also lists the most common nationalities amongst these irregular border crossings. Some came from Afghanistan and Syria - clearly countries that would fit the definition of in conflict, but of the 100,000 who crossed the central Mediterranean to reach Europe, most were from Egypt, Tunisia and Bangladesh. Other countries that featured among migrant arrivals were Nigeria, India, and Turkey. Of the 15,460 people who entered Europe on what Frontex described as the Western African route, the main countries of origin were Morocco, Senegal, Guinea and Ivory Coast. Frontex also reported on the main nationalities observed to be exiting towards the UK - Syria, Iraq and Albania. Given the demographics of those observed to be travelling via irregular border crossings as outlined above, it's relatively clear that a very large proportion crossing the Mediterranean and the Channel via irregular means are most likely not fleeing wars or religious persecution; they are in search of greater economic opportunities, legal or otherwise.

Personally, I'm not opposed to migrants coming over here for greater economic opportunities - we know there is a demand for more workers that's been discussed on here before - but I'd rather they came here via legal means rather than illegal means where they only really benefit the gangs smuggling them in (of which the EU reports over 90% of those travelling via irregular border crossings were doing so with help from criminal gangs). I personally think this messaging surrounding irregular border crossings via dinghys and other boats should go hand in hand with making it easier to apply for migration via legal methods. I'd also argue that restoring our previous levels of foreign aid might help - but we need to make sure that's going to the people who need it and that's a whole other discussion.

It is illegal, because how do you stop the boats? The Royal Navy? Coast Guard?
Under Maritime law, and the ECHR, there is a duty to save lives when in danger, which means the migrants must be brought into the UK if they are in danger when attempting to cross the channel, and because the UK left the EU, the UK cannot send them back to the EU. This also does not go into the fact that you cannot send people back to countries where they face the possibility of death.

Didn't realise you were a ECHR judge qualified to make such rulings and that you'd actually read the bill before it has been finalised Celt. It's pretty much inevitable it's going to get challenged in the courts, so I suggest instead of LARPing as a judge, we let the actual judges do their job with the details and the facts to hand, right?

Bit hard to be angry about migrants when you’re looking at skyrocketing energy and food bills and the government is more concerned with stoking racism than doing anything about it.

I don't disagree, but I think there is an argument to be made that it's likely to be a larger issue come election time, provided the situation in Russia calms down in the next year and a bit, and alternative energy sources continue to be developed to further reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

It's not like the Chair of the BBC got the job for helping Boris Johnson get a loan or anything.

Given he is under investigation for exactly that at the moment, doesn't that play into the argument the BBC need to at least look like they are impartial?

Again, I don't think Lineker should be sacked (for this at least), whilst I think Richard Sharps position is becoming untenable, but it's the first high-profile BBC perception of impartiality since the Richard Sharp debacle came out, so the organisation almost had to look like they were trying to be impartial.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

He didn't compare the policies to Nazi Germany though - he compared the language being used to language being used in 1930s Germany.

You really think he was comparing to the Weimar republic?

No? But again he wasn't comparing the policies. He was comparing the language being used. There's a difference there.

[The Archregimancy]

While acknowledging that this happened before the current series of The Apprentice went on the air, if the BBC hasn't had a conversation with Lord Sugar over his use of social media, it might perhaps be sensible to suspend the current series until they can undertake that clarification.

Lord Sugar is not a news presenter, of course, but it was surely inappropriate for one of the very highly paid host of a highly-rated peak-time flagship programme to be taking such strong views on a party political issue by supporting the government in criticising union leaders during the current contentious strikes.

And before anyone decides to reply by stating 'but those two cases aren't really identical though, are they Arch?' Perhaps not - that's a debateable point - but the key point is that part of the problem for the BBC here is the appearance of partiality from being seen to selectively bow to government pressure over the latter's demands for impartiality. And appearances matter.


Also, I now see that the commentary teams for MOTD have now also pulled out of tonight's coverage in support of Lineker, forcing the BBC to use the generic Premier League world feed to supply coverage. This is turning into a fairly spectacular own goal [analogy fully intended].