[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Thunder Bolt]

I see that Lineker is in trouble for stating the truth about their dangerous rhetoric. He has to be spoken to for having opinions that disagree with Government ministers because it impacts upon BBC neutrality. He'll presumably be spoken to by former Conservative Council candidate and DG of the BBC Tim Davie, following instruction from Richard Sharp the BBC Chairman and former Boris Johnson advisor who donated £400,000 to the Conservative Party, or perhaps from the board member for England, former Teresa May Communications Director Robbie Gibb*, described by Emily Matlis as an 'active agent of the Conservative Party.'

If the BBC is really as keen on balance as these hypocrites claim, it will need to ask all of the MotD presenters to join the SWP in order to balance the number of tory cronies who are in executive positions in the organisation.

The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...olicy-nazi-germany-match-of-the-day-presenter reports that: "The immigration minister Robert Jenrick told Times Radio:...."Gary Lineker is paid for by the British taxpayer and it is disappointing that he is so far out of step with the British public."

Lineker's views are actually closer to public opinion than are the extremist policies being proposed: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...-back-rwanda-plan_uk_63a0991be4b0f4895addddd2
He is also not paid for by the British taxpayer. His salary is paid by licence fee payers. This is not the same thing.
I'll tell you who is being paid for by the British Taxpayer though, you guessed it - Robert Jenrick - who is, apparently free to tweet anything he likes. I'm not saying he shouldn't be, I'm just saying that this point makes his inaccurate cliche about who is being paid for from taxes entirely irrelevent to his weak argument.

*- Who was incidentally appointed by May as Communications Director following his stint in overall charge of BBC politicl programme output. A similar move from a supposedly politically independent job to a party political one that has recently seen the condemnation of Sue Gray. The two aren't the same you suggest? A senior Civil Servant is not comparable with a BBC employee? Perhaps you're right - perhaps there should be different standards. For example, why would a football presenter be held to the same standards as senior civil servant?

Gary Lineker is not a BBC employee, as proved to HMRC last year.
He is freelance, and has a contract for football coverage.

 

[Audax]

Safe, legal routes to the UK would be a good start. The only reason I can think of as to why the Home Office aren't currently implementing this is that they know their core voters are largely against immigration and "STOP THE BOATS" appeals to them more than "provide safe passage for those in need of asylum".

This. The reason why they come via the boats currently is because it has become more and more difficult to legally claim asylum in the UK through any other route. We have a system that requires them to be already in the country to lodge a claim. That incentivises people smuggling, because an awful lot of asylum seekers don't have the documentation to enter the country through normal routes before lodging their claim. You then layer on top of that that under the Tories processing of claims by the Home Office has become more and more inefficient, and more and more stacked against the claimant, and you end up where we are today.

If you set up a proper legal route, efficiently run, that allows claims to be made from outside the UK and those claims are processed in a timely, and fair, manner and the people smuggling business will dry up. The asylum seekers don't *want* to make the crossing by boat. Give them a safer, less life-risking, option and they'll take that route instead. As proven, by the way, by the Ukraine situation. We've got a legal route that allows claims to be made from outside the UK, more efficient (though still not great) claim processing, and guess what ... Ukrainians aren't coming on the boats.

 

[nicko31]

Gary Lineker is not a BBC employee, as proved to HMRC last year.
He is freelance, and has a contract for football coverage.

Yes and he wasn't making his comments on MOTD, it was on twitter. Is this what cancel culture is?

 

[Stato]

It’s more about terms and conditions of employment for me. If Linekar and Packham et al are bound by some neutrality clause on speaking out politically when working for the BBC then they must stick to it. If they’re not then say what you want. Anybody in the public domain who uses Nazi Germany as a comparison to a modern situation is deliberately trying to get as much traction as possible.

The same people (Gibb for instance) that have introduced neutrality clauses for BBC presenters had no concern over employing Andrew Neill to helm one of its flagship political programmes at the same time that Neill was Chair of the Spectator. Whilst Clarkson was working for them doing 'Top Gear', he was also being paid by newspapers to write columns of his political views and nobody at the BBC cared. Either all presenters and journalists can hold their own political views and not let it affect their job, or none of them can. You can't argue that only the ones that disagree with you should be quiet.

 

[Rdodge30]

The same people (Gibb for instance) that have introduced neutrality clauses for BBC presenters had no concern over employing Andrew Neill to helm one of its flagship political programmes at the same time that Neill was Chair of the Spectator. Whilst Clarkson was working for them doing 'Top Gear', he was also being paid by newspapers to write columns of his political views and nobody at the BBC cared. Either all presenters and journalists can hold their own political views and not let it affect their job, or none of them can. You can't argue that only the ones that disagree with you should be quiet.

Absolutely agree. Enforce for all.

 

[Audax]

Sir Keir Starmer:

Former immigration minister Keir Starmer was upfront about the issues the Labour party had around immigration policy at the Monday evening fringe event.

“If we are honest with ourselves, Labour has been lacking in confidence on immigration for a number of years. We don’t know what to say and we are on the back foot in debates.”

This is worrying, said Starmer, because without knowing what Labour stands for on the issue, it cannot fulfil its role as an opposition party and hold the Government to account.

He said after touring the country on a fact finding mission, he saw that there were two clear camps invested in the issue: pro-immigration businesses and ‘disenchanted’ anti-immigration members of the public.

FFS provide your sources and context when dropping quotes like that. That quote is from 2016. Seven blinking years ago. I'm pretty sure Labour has a much better idea of what they want to do on immigration policy today than they did back then.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It’s more about terms and conditions of employment for me. If Linekar and Packham et al are bound by some neutrality clause on speaking out politically when working for the BBC then they must stick to it. If they’re not then say what you want. Anybody in the public domain who uses Nazi Germany as a comparison to a modern situation is deliberately trying to get as much traction as possible.

Lineker is not a BBC employee so not bound by any t&cs of employment.

As for using a comparison to Nazi Germany, let's hear from a Holocaust survivor herself who confronted Sue Ellen Braverman.

Home Secretary tells Holocaust survivor she ‘won’t apologise’ for ‘invasion’ rhetoric

‘When I hear you using words against refugees ... I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others,’ Joan Salter said

www.independent.co.uk

 

[cheshunt seagull]

I understand you’re point but I disagree. It will never be solved so will never go away. As with all political problems- actually having a positive effect on solving the problem is a better vote winner than deliberately failing in order to keep the problem alive

Fair enough, I think there is more than one credible position. Hopefully we will reach a point where the electorate put faith in Labour to put in place a proper system for processing claims and working with the international community to clamp down on criminal gangs and maybe even have a foreign policy which looks at the root causes of migration.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The same people (Gibb for instance) that have introduced neutrality clauses for BBC presenters had no concern over employing Andrew Neill to helm one of its flagship political programmes at the same time that Neill was Chair of the Spectator. Whilst Clarkson was working for them doing 'Top Gear', he was also being paid by newspapers to write columns of his political views and nobody at the BBC cared. Either all presenters and journalists can hold their own political views and not let it affect their job, or none of them can. You can't argue that only the ones that disagree with you should be quiet.

Again, freelancers are not covered by employee's conditions.

Gary Lineker proved to HMRC he is self employed.

 

[Berty23]

Yes and he wasn't making his comments on MOTD, it was on twitter. Is this what cancel culture is?

Slowly people are realising that those who shout “cancel culture” the loudest actually mean “cancel those those disagree with us and support those who agree” it is the opposite of free speech that these people bang on about.

Is is just so weird that they are focussing on raising a problem they have no plan of solving which will get a few people very angry. It will surely help another farage comeback. My suspicion is the home sec knows it won’t work, will eventually quit and then blame sunak.

Immigration is not even that close to concerns. The proportion of refugees we take coming on boats is only about 15-20% of those coming to country at the moment so the idea we are swamped by them is just bizarre when you compare to Ukraine, Hong Kong and some afghans.

 

[Rdodge30]

FFS provide your sources and context when dropping quotes like that. That quote is from 2016. Seven blinking years ago. I'm pretty sure Labour has a much better idea of what they want to do on immigration policy today than they did back then.

No need to be so aggressive mate

If you’re sure there is a newer view then post it, I would be interested to read it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A lot of views on here seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding the illegal immigration problem and don’t want to solve it.

If that’s true then it is foolishness with regards to gaining reelection as solving illegal immigration polls very highly across the country

The Labour Party WILL site Tory failure over stopping illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

The Labour Party WILL provide their own solution to illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

If asylum seekers are already illegal, why is the government so keen to pass a law making them illegal?

Think about i.

 

[sparkie]

Safe, legal routes to the UK would be a good start. The only reason I can think of as to why the Home Office aren't currently implementing this is that they know their core voters are largely against immigration and "STOP THE BOATS" appeals to them more than "provide safe passage for those in need of asylum".

They need to take votes off the Reform Party - this policy is purely aimed at those voters deciding between the Tories and Reform.

 

[beorhthelm]

FFS provide your sources and context when dropping quotes like that. That quote is from 2016. Seven blinking years ago. I'm pretty sure Labour has a much better idea of what they want to do on immigration policy today than they did back then.

they should stop keeping quiet about it, let people hear the alternatives. move the dicussion on from the present cul-de-sac.

 

[beorhthelm]

...

Immigration is not even that close to concerns. The proportion of refugees we take coming on boats is only about 15-20% of those coming to country at the moment so the idea we are swamped by them is just bizarre when you compare to Ukraine, Hong Kong and some afghans.

interesting though what issues it comes above. housing and poverty only top concern for 11%?

 

[nicko31]

They need to take votes off the Reform Party - this policy is purely aimed at those voters deciding between the Tories and Reform.

Agree, they getting 5-7%, Farage quits Gebeebies and it could become 10%. I don't think the Tories can win again without the racists on board

 

[Berty23]

interesting though what issues it comes above. housing and poverty only top concern for 11%?

That is the power of a government constantly banging on about an issue. It is so strange they don’t shout about something they will actually improve.

 

[Stato]

Again, freelancers are not covered by employee's conditions.

Gary Lineker proved to HMRC he is self employed.

I understand his employment status, but it's a moot point really. If the organistion wants a silence/neutrality clause, they would just put it into the contract of the self employed person, rather than into the T&C's of the employee. My main concern is that these clauses, under the cover of 'balance' are really just being used to try to cow any disagreement by a management that has been appointed by, and is primarily serving the interests of, the present government.

Watching Paul Whitehouse's recent documentary about river health, I was reminded that, before the privatisations of utilities happened there was a sustained period of government underfunding and political criticism of the public sector bodies that were running water, phones, rail, gas etc. Talk it down for a few years, underfund it to make sure that there are some grounds for your complaints, then suggest that private companies could do it so much better. It happened to all of them. It then happened to schools before the push for academisation. It's now happening to both the BBC and the NHS. It's obvious what the long term desire is.

 

[Stato]

A lot of views on here seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding the illegal immigration problem and don’t want to solve it.

If that’s true then it is foolishness with regards to gaining reelection as solving illegal immigration polls very highly across the country

The Labour Party WILL site Tory failure over stopping illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

The Labour Party WILL provide their own solution to illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

This version of the Conservative Party doesn't try to win votes through solving issues. It tries to win votes by scaring people. If they wanted to solve the problem, there are many things that they could try: Agree to a processing centre in France; allow those awaiting results of asylum claims to work whilst they are waiting; work with, not against, international organisations that try to resolve migration and refugee issues; etc. They haven't done any of them. Instead they propose something that is ridiculously callous and unworkable, so that they can have a fight with those who recognise that it is ridiculously callous and unworkable. Then they can campaign with the message that their hands are being tied by: you name it: the opposition, the EU, the European Court of Human Rights, the UN, lawyers, judges, civil servants, the mainstream media, the coalition of chaos, the anti growth coalition, Scottish Nationalists, trans people, green campaigners, experts, elites, intellectuals, Gary Lineker, or anybody at whom they can shout 'Woke!' They are completely wrapped up in ideology and utterly uninterested in any evidence based policy that could be effective, but won't be tried because it does not fit their fixed world view.

It boils down to:

Yes, we've been in power for over a decade and overseen a decline in absolutely everything, but that was because these evil villains have stopped us!
Vote for us, as we are the only ones who can take on these evil villains!

It's worked for them for over a decade, why would they change it now?

 

[Rdodge30]

@Stato

Rightly or wrongly the Rwanda policy was more popular with some groups of voters in the country than people think.

“Whilst across the population just 35 per cent support the Rwanda policy,” But for C2s [working class voters] the figure is 31 per cent oppose and 48 per cent support. Among Leave voters, it’s even starker, with 23 per cent oppose and 57 per cent support.

Yet you would think from the narrative that everyone was opposed to it.

Once Sir Keir comes up with a credible solution to illegal immigration then we will have a debate on our hands.

He knows it needs dealing with - he has said it needs dealing with. His policy seems to be to oppose with righteous indignation yet not to put forward a solution.

We will have to agree to disagree, I do not believe the Conservatives offer only solutions that they know will be overturned in Court in order to keep the problem alive in order to win votes - I do believe the immigration problem is very real, very difficult to solve and if Sir Keir has a viable solution he will be shouting it from the rooftops come Election time, pointing out how the Conservatives have failed and THAT will be a vote winner.


Only time will tell who is right, if Labour win their landslide and implement all the measures you have just accused the Conservatives of not implementing in order to solve the problem, I will applaud