Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

[_Os_]

Worth looking at the last few weeks to see how Labour's focus on immigration is going.

May 12th, Starmer's Island of Strangers speech.
May 12th to 16th, Labour's messaging focused only on immigration in what was know as "immigration week". A white paper was released yet again changing all the immigration rules.
May 15th, leaked audio of Chris Philp conveniently comes out during "immigration week" (eye roll), admitting Brexit/leaving the Dublin regulations mean asylum seekers cannot automatically be returned to the first place they claim asylum, which accounts for half of all asylum seekers in the UK.
May 22nd, ONS releases net immigration figures showing the number went down by more than half in 2024 to net 431k. This reflects Jenrick's (perhaps unsustainable) changes designed to cut numbers for a late election (which never happened) without regard for what happens after.

That's two weeks of perfect coverage from the point of view that "focus on immigration and Labour will win". There's a mad Enoch Powell speech, harsher laws on people legally living in the UK, lower net migration numbers, Tories admitting it was them. Instead it's reported like this:
May 15th, Express headline "The shocking number of migrants still moving to Britain revealed in major update" (reality check: net migration down by half)
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... jor-update
June 1st, massive focus on more than 1000 people arriving on boats in a single day, something the government has little ability to control.

Polling shows any movement over that time was within the margin of error. But taken at face value the numbers show: Labour increase by 1% and a Reform decrease by 1% on the day of the Island of Stangers speech, then as immigration is focused on more an increase for Reform by 1% and drops for Labour and the Tories by 1%-2%.

YouGov
May 5-6 : Labour 22%, Tory 17%, Reform 29%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 10%
May 11-12: Labour 23%, Tory 18%, Reform 28%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%
May 18-19: Labour 22%, Tory 16%, Reform 29%, Lib Dem 17%, Green 10%
May 26-27: Labour 21%, Tory 19%, Reform 29%, Lib Dem 15%, Green 11%
June 1-2 : Labour 22%, Tory 18%, Reform 28%, Lib Dem 17%, Green 9%

Still no evidence focusing on immigration is ever going to get Labour anywhere. It's not a debate about facts, net immigration can literally halve and the Express will say "The shocking number of migrants still moving to Britain revealed" and whoever is reading the Express will presumably think "FUCKING LABOUR!!!". Same with however many small boats there are.

[Paddington Bear]

Net migration can literally halve and it still remains a live issue because it is still at a totally historically unprecedented level, it is still the best part of half a million people in a year, we clearly can’t cope with those numbers, and we are pouring more people onto a wave of migration that is very poorly integrated, has low levels of employment and we lack the infrastructure to support as it is. This really isn’t particularly complicated - people’s world view needs to move on from the idea that this is a few Polish plumbers working exceptionally hard, the world has moved on in 20 years

[_Os_]

These people are seriously fucking deranged

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orm-voters

Go fash to chase Reform voters who won't vote for you.
Go fash and alienate the moderate parts of the Party and floating voters (the latter who probably only voted for you out of fatigue at 14 years of Conservative Government, way to appeal to them long term).
Exist and be an object of derision from the left of the Party.

Seriously, Blue Labour should fuck off to the Tories, because that's essentially where they are.

Blue Labour sound awful, but the UK does need to axe all DEI stuff before it takes root. The discussions in the UK today around this stuff remind me of SA 20-30 years ago. There's a very limited amount of roles where most of those doing the job need to have the same identity as the "client" (for want of a better term) to perform the job properly. As soon as it gets into "reflecting the demographics of the country" (in some back office somewhere), or "ethnicity A does not make as much as ethnicity B on average" (when ethnicity A is obsessed with education and business ownership to a pathological degree, and ethnicity B struggles to work never mind save/invest), you just know it's going to be a total fuck up.

The reason I knew Truss was an incompetent moron who would be disaster PM, over a year out from her becoming PM, was that it was very obvious from her career trajectory that she was a diversity hire (Cameron A list etc). Even in something as subjective as politics it's not possible to throw anyone into the job. The irony is that once it's known an organisation is captured by this stuff, the automatic assumption becomes anyone who isn't a white man is incompetent, even (as is the case with the Tories) if they're incompetent also. Probably an argument that DEI has destroyed the Tories, but some of the CVs aren't as clear cut as Truss (some are, like Braverman).

Truss is instructive in many ways. Has no understanding her level in politics is local councillor who was promoted about 5 levels above her ability. She wants to be Tory leader and PM again. The norm for someone like that in a more normal job isn't the sack, it's sitting in their job multiple levels above their ability doing damage for their entire career. If SA is anything to go by (and it is regarding this stuff), Truss only gets sacked from a more normal job years down the track when her being white becomes an issue.

[_Os_]

Net migration can literally halve and it still remains a live issue because it is still at a totally historically unprecedented level, it is still the best part of half a million people in a year, we clearly can’t cope with those numbers, and we are pouring more people onto a wave of migration that is very poorly integrated, has low levels of employment and we lack the infrastructure to support as it is. This really isn’t particularly complicated - people’s world view needs to move on from the idea that this is a few Polish plumbers working exceptionally hard, the world has moved on in 20 years

Labour are doing the most they can do and there's demonstrably no increase in support.

Labour win nothing if they focus on immigration. The calculation is as simple as that. Net immigration can be near 1m, or 431k, same headlines, same talking points, Frog Face still grinning. Labour choosing to focus on immigration helps Reform if it helps anyone at all.

[Paddington Bear]

Net migration can literally halve and it still remains a live issue because it is still at a totally historically unprecedented level, it is still the best part of half a million people in a year, we clearly can’t cope with those numbers, and we are pouring more people onto a wave of migration that is very poorly integrated, has low levels of employment and we lack the infrastructure to support as it is. This really isn’t particularly complicated - people’s world view needs to move on from the idea that this is a few Polish plumbers working exceptionally hard, the world has moved on in 20 years

Labour are doing the most they can do and there's demonstrably no increase in support.

Labour win nothing if they focus on immigration. The calculation is as simple as that. Net immigration can be near 1m, or 431k, same headlines, same talking points, Frog Face still grinning. Labour choosing to focus on immigration helps Reform if it helps anyone at all.

They’re clearly not doing the most they can given they have announced a raft of new measures and focuses in the last week, you just don’t want them to take any action. 431,000 is a totally unsustainable, unprecedented, nation changing number in of itself hence why people remain pissed off.

Migration is an unavoidable political talking point because people care about it and they keep being ignored, hard as it is for many to believe that the general public are capable of forming opinions.

[Biffer]

These people are seriously fucking deranged

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orm-voters

Go fash to chase Reform voters who won't vote for you.
Go fash and alienate the moderate parts of the Party and floating voters (the latter who probably only voted for you out of fatigue at 14 years of Conservative Government, way to appeal to them long term).
Exist and be an object of derision from the left of the Party.

Seriously, Blue Labour should fuck off to the Tories, because that's essentially where they are.

Blue Labour sound awful, but the UK does need to axe all DEI stuff before it takes root. The discussions in the UK today around this stuff remind me of SA 20-30 years ago. There's a very limited amount of roles where most of those doing the job need to have the same identity as the "client" (for want of a better term) to perform the job properly. As soon as it gets into "reflecting the demographics of the country" (in some back office somewhere), or "ethnicity A does not make as much as ethnicity B on average" (when ethnicity A is obsessed with education and business ownership to a pathological degree, and ethnicity B struggles to work never mind save/invest), you just know it's going to be a total fuck up.

The reason I knew Truss was an incompetent moron who would be disaster PM, over a year out from her becoming PM, was that it was very obvious from her career trajectory that she was a diversity hire (Cameron A list etc). Even in something as subjective as politics it's not possible to throw anyone into the job. The irony is that once it's known an organisation is captured by this stuff, the automatic assumption becomes anyone who isn't a white man is incompetent, even (as is the case with the Tories) if they're incompetent also. Probably an argument that DEI has destroyed the Tories, but some of the CVs aren't as clear cut as Truss (some are, like Braverman).

Truss is instructive in many ways. Has no understanding her level in politics is local councillor who was promoted about 5 levels above her ability. She wants to be Tory leader and PM again. The norm for someone like that in a more normal job isn't the sack, it's sitting in their job multiple levels above their ability doing damage for their entire career. If SA is anything to go by (and it is regarding this stuff), Truss only gets sacked from a more normal job years down the track when her being white becomes an issue.

This is just fantasy. Desperately trying to find a way to say the right has been infected with DEI and that’s the problem, rather than their ideas and competence. Your description of equality and diversity initiatives bears no relation to anything I’ve ever seen in my roles in government, industry or academia.

[_Os_]

Go fash to chase Reform voters who won't vote for you.
Go fash and alienate the moderate parts of the Party and floating voters (the latter who probably only voted for you out of fatigue at 14 years of Conservative Government, way to appeal to them long term).
Exist and be an object of derision from the left of the Party.

Seriously, Blue Labour should fuck off to the Tories, because that's essentially where they are.

Blue Labour sound awful, but the UK does need to axe all DEI stuff before it takes root. The discussions in the UK today around this stuff remind me of SA 20-30 years ago. There's a very limited amount of roles where most of those doing the job need to have the same identity as the "client" (for want of a better term) to perform the job properly. As soon as it gets into "reflecting the demographics of the country" (in some back office somewhere), or "ethnicity A does not make as much as ethnicity B on average" (when ethnicity A is obsessed with education and business ownership to a pathological degree, and ethnicity B struggles to work never mind save/invest), you just know it's going to be a total fuck up.

The reason I knew Truss was an incompetent moron who would be disaster PM, over a year out from her becoming PM, was that it was very obvious from her career trajectory that she was a diversity hire (Cameron A list etc). Even in something as subjective as politics it's not possible to throw anyone into the job. The irony is that once it's known an organisation is captured by this stuff, the automatic assumption becomes anyone who isn't a white man is incompetent, even (as is the case with the Tories) if they're incompetent also. Probably an argument that DEI has destroyed the Tories, but some of the CVs aren't as clear cut as Truss (some are, like Braverman).

Truss is instructive in many ways. Has no understanding her level in politics is local councillor who was promoted about 5 levels above her ability. She wants to be Tory leader and PM again. The norm for someone like that in a more normal job isn't the sack, it's sitting in their job multiple levels above their ability doing damage for their entire career. If SA is anything to go by (and it is regarding this stuff), Truss only gets sacked from a more normal job years down the track when her being white becomes an issue.

This is just fantasy. Desperately trying to find a way to say the right has been infected with DEI and that’s the problem, rather than their ideas and competence. Your description of equality and diversity initiatives bears no relation to anything I’ve ever seen in my roles in government, industry or academia.

As I said, the same arguments I heard 20-30 years ago. The UK is at the thin end of the wedge on this stuff. But if you're making some convoluted argument that a multi racial/ethnic society needs to discriminate against some to make it "fair" that's a bigger proposition than some are bargaining for and will end up collapsing institutions. There's a lot of Western exceptionalism in the debate too, because multiple countries have found out a lot of this the hard way, they're just not Western because this is new in the West.

It's an open and shut case that Truss was on the Cameron A list and parachuted because of sex, from there she learned to say whatever she thought Tory members wanted to hear in that particular moment (anti-Brexit, pro-Brexit). Braverman the same story but was parachuted at least once because of her race too. If you're running an organisation like that, you're going to destroy yourself.

[Biffer]

Blue Labour sound awful, but the UK does need to axe all DEI stuff before it takes root. The discussions in the UK today around this stuff remind me of SA 20-30 years ago. There's a very limited amount of roles where most of those doing the job need to have the same identity as the "client" (for want of a better term) to perform the job properly. As soon as it gets into "reflecting the demographics of the country" (in some back office somewhere), or "ethnicity A does not make as much as ethnicity B on average" (when ethnicity A is obsessed with education and business ownership to a pathological degree, and ethnicity B struggles to work never mind save/invest), you just know it's going to be a total fuck up.

The reason I knew Truss was an incompetent moron who would be disaster PM, over a year out from her becoming PM, was that it was very obvious from her career trajectory that she was a diversity hire (Cameron A list etc). Even in something as subjective as politics it's not possible to throw anyone into the job. The irony is that once it's known an organisation is captured by this stuff, the automatic assumption becomes anyone who isn't a white man is incompetent, even (as is the case with the Tories) if they're incompetent also. Probably an argument that DEI has destroyed the Tories, but some of the CVs aren't as clear cut as Truss (some are, like Braverman).

Truss is instructive in many ways. Has no understanding her level in politics is local councillor who was promoted about 5 levels above her ability. She wants to be Tory leader and PM again. The norm for someone like that in a more normal job isn't the sack, it's sitting in their job multiple levels above their ability doing damage for their entire career. If SA is anything to go by (and it is regarding this stuff), Truss only gets sacked from a more normal job years down the track when her being white becomes an issue.

This is just fantasy. Desperately trying to find a way to say the right has been infected with DEI and that’s the problem, rather than their ideas and competence. Your description of equality and diversity initiatives bears no relation to anything I’ve ever seen in my roles in government, industry or academia.

As I said, the same arguments I heard 20-30 years ago. The UK is at the thin end of the wedge on this stuff. But if you're making some convoluted argument that a multi racial/ethnic society needs to discriminate against some to make it "fair" that's a bigger proposition than some are bargaining for and will end up collapsing institutions. There's a lot of Western exceptionalism in the debate too, because multiple countries have found out a lot of this the hard way, they're just not Western because this is new in the West.

It's an open and shut case that Truss was on the Cameron A list and parachuted because of sex, from there she learned to say whatever she thought Tory members wanted to hear in that particular moment (anti-Brexit, pro-Brexit). Braverman the same story but was parachuted at least once because of her race too. If you're running an organisation like that, you're going to destroy yourself.

I’ve never encountered a scheme in the uk in government academia or industry that has promoted discrimination.

She may have got to the MP list as a result of women shortlists but that’s not why she was selected as party leader and PM. That was because the members of the Tory party would rather have a useless woman than a little brown chap. They’re probably the group in the country that’s the least DEI set of people.

[_Os_]

This is just fantasy. Desperately trying to find a way to say the right has been infected with DEI and that’s the problem, rather than their ideas and competence. Your description of equality and diversity initiatives bears no relation to anything I’ve ever seen in my roles in government, industry or academia.

As I said, the same arguments I heard 20-30 years ago. The UK is at the thin end of the wedge on this stuff. But if you're making some convoluted argument that a multi racial/ethnic society needs to discriminate against some to make it "fair" that's a bigger proposition than some are bargaining for and will end up collapsing institutions. There's a lot of Western exceptionalism in the debate too, because multiple countries have found out a lot of this the hard way, they're just not Western because this is new in the West.

It's an open and shut case that Truss was on the Cameron A list and parachuted because of sex, from there she learned to say whatever she thought Tory members wanted to hear in that particular moment (anti-Brexit, pro-Brexit). Braverman the same story but was parachuted at least once because of her race too. If you're running an organisation like that, you're going to destroy yourself.

I’ve never encountered a scheme in the uk in government academia or industry that has promoted discrimination.

She may have got to the MP list as a result of women shortlists but that’s not why she was selected as party leader and PM. That was because the members of the Tory party would rather have a useless woman than a little brown chap. They’re probably the group in the country that’s the least DEI set of people.

If you make a list of candidates and it's only women or only people who are not white. That is unavoidably gender and racial discrimination.

Truss was boosted first into being an MP then very quickly into ministerial roles, because she was chosen by Cameron for reasons other than merit. Here's a pop quiz for you, how long did Truss spend in the Commons and how much of that was on the back benches? Yes the Tories are not "transformed" to use Orwellian SA language, but they very obviously boosted every MP they had who was a woman or not white to their front benches.

But back to your personal experiences in employment. Has anywhere you have worked employed people in the exact proportion to the racial demographics of the UK (which is changing, so what may have matched that 20 years ago, does not today)? Were any of those companies owned in exact proportion to the racial demographics of the UK? If not using the logic of DEI, they need to undergo further discrimination to achieve a "fair" "representative" outcome.

Of course if the UK does actually have imbalances between different ethnic groups (it does, as every single multi racial/ethnic society does), then all the organisations most able to hire all the competent people to satisfy DEI demands do so. Everyone who is not a big corporate with huge resources, then somehow has to meet all the DEI requirements under conditions where all the employees needed to do so have already been hired. Which is why all the multi nationals support this stuff, they operate in non-West markets which have similar laws and know it's a nice additional barrier to entry.

[Biffer]

As I said, the same arguments I heard 20-30 years ago. The UK is at the thin end of the wedge on this stuff. But if you're making some convoluted argument that a multi racial/ethnic society needs to discriminate against some to make it "fair" that's a bigger proposition than some are bargaining for and will end up collapsing institutions. There's a lot of Western exceptionalism in the debate too, because multiple countries have found out a lot of this the hard way, they're just not Western because this is new in the West.

It's an open and shut case that Truss was on the Cameron A list and parachuted because of sex, from there she learned to say whatever she thought Tory members wanted to hear in that particular moment (anti-Brexit, pro-Brexit). Braverman the same story but was parachuted at least once because of her race too. If you're running an organisation like that, you're going to destroy yourself.

I’ve never encountered a scheme in the uk in government academia or industry that has promoted discrimination.

She may have got to the MP list as a result of women shortlists but that’s not why she was selected as party leader and PM. That was because the members of the Tory party would rather have a useless woman than a little brown chap. They’re probably the group in the country that’s the least DEI set of people.

If you make a list of candidates and it's only women or only people who are not white. That is unavoidably gender and racial discrimination.

Truss was boosted first into being an MP then very quickly into ministerial roles, because she was chosen by Cameron for reasons other than merit. Here's a pop quiz for you, how long did Truss spend in the Commons and how much of that was on the back benches? Yes the Tories are not "transformed" to use Orwellian SA language, but they very obviously boosted every MP they had who was a woman or not white to their front benches.

But back to your personal experiences in employment. Has anywhere you have worked employed people in the exact proportion to the racial makeup of the UK (which is changing, so what may have matched that 20 years ago, does not today)? Were any of those companies owned in exact proportion to the racial demographics of the UK? If not using the logic of DEI, they need to undergo further discrimination to achieve a "fair" "representative" outcome.

Of course if the UK does actually have imbalances between different ethnic groups (it does, as every single multi racial/ethnic society does), then all the organisations most able to hire all the competent people to satisfy DEI demands do so. Everyone who is not a big corporate with huge resources, then somehow has to meet all the DEI requirements under conditions where all the best employees needed to do so have already been hired. Which is why all the multi nationals support this stuff, they operate in non-West markets which have similar laws and know it's a nice additional barrier to entry.

That'd just so far away from what happens it's not worth discussing with you.

And just to not, both David Cameron and Rishi Sunak were MPs for less time, and with less government experience, than Liz Truss was when she became leader.

[tabascoboy]

With Truss, I'm sure it was a mixture of Tory HQ thinking she was compliant enough to be led in the direction they wanted, and/or she could be moulded into, Maggie Reborn. For the members around the country it was likely a mixture of that, with Truss being seen as a supporter of the BoJo they loved rather than Sunak as someone who was instrumental in the removal of him. Not to mention she was seen a tax-cutter not raiser.

Apparently no-one had any inkling she would turn full on MAGA loving Loon so quickly and disastrously.

[Deepsouth]

Imagine the English. What did someone call you? A nation of shopkeepers. Was that Adolf? Or a Frenchman...

[Hugo]

The Plaid Cymru MP that was on Question Time was actually insane. People like this who have no viable solutions to problems other than vibes need not be in power.

[TedMaul]

Imagine the English. What did someone call you? A nation of shopkeepers. Was that Adolf? Or a Frenchman...

Certainly not a pig thick Aussie.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Imagine the English. What did someone call you? A nation of shopkeepers. Was that Adolf? Or a Frenchman...

Certainly not a pig thick Aussie.

Even if one accepts the charge it's hardly damning. Oh no, someone has noted we engage in commerce, the shame!

Much more damning would be something like Brexit, with it's take on events that you can have too much commerce and it's better to shrink an economy

[TedMaul]

Imagine the English. What did someone call you? A nation of shopkeepers. Was that Adolf? Or a Frenchman...

Hey little man your big hw hope Huni just got knocked out cold by a shopkeeper

[Paddington Bear]

https://x.com/BTP/status/1931290058457223588

Been a major uptick in enforcement action on the tube this week after Jenrick embarrassed them into action. Lo and behold, as is obvious to anyone who takes the tube and sees the people fare dodging, the fare dodgers have a wildly higher propensity to commit more serious crime than the average

[Tichtheid]

Susanna Reid clashes with Robert Jenrick over fare dodgers video: ‘It’s not about you’

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/cultur ... 61897.html

[Paddington Bear]

Susanna Reid clashes with Robert Jenrick over fare dodgers video: ‘It’s not about you’

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/cultur ... 61897.html

And yet his video has purely coincidentally caused a massive increase in enforcement action, and no one having a pop at him for making it has been able to say he is wrong (because he is right). There seems to be a bizarre view within the political class that pointing out something like this happens is non-U and below the belt

[Tichtheid]

Susanna Reid clashes with Robert Jenrick over fare dodgers video: ‘It’s not about you’

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/cultur ... 61897.html

And yet his video has purely coincidentally caused a massive increase in enforcement action, and no one having a pop at him for making it has been able to say he is wrong (because he is right). There seems to be a bizarre view within the political class that pointing out something like this happens is non-U and below the belt

I just can’t take the man seriously at all, mainly due to the whiffy smell coming off all manner of planning deals involving Tory donors.
This was a stunt, he didn’t bother to report a guy who said he was carrying a knife - he’s the shadow justice secretary.

[Paddington Bear]

Susanna Reid clashes with Robert Jenrick over fare dodgers video: ‘It’s not about you’

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/cultur ... 61897.html

And yet his video has purely coincidentally caused a massive increase in enforcement action, and no one having a pop at him for making it has been able to say he is wrong (because he is right). There seems to be a bizarre view within the political class that pointing out something like this happens is non-U and below the belt

I just can’t take the man seriously at all, mainly due to the whiffy smell coming off all manner of planning deals involving Tory donors.
This was a stunt, he didn’t bother to report a guy who said he was carrying a knife - he’s the shadow justice secretary.

Of course it was a stunt, he’s in opposition! It has however embarrassed those who can take action into doing so. So much of this discourse is essentially ‘I don’t like the bloke and I’d rather the salience of petty crime wasn’t raised’

[Tichtheid]

And yet his video has purely coincidentally caused a massive increase in enforcement action, and no one having a pop at him for making it has been able to say he is wrong (because he is right). There seems to be a bizarre view within the political class that pointing out something like this happens is non-U and below the belt

I just can’t take the man seriously at all, mainly due to the whiffy smell coming off all manner of planning deals involving Tory donors.
This was a stunt, he didn’t bother to report a guy who said he was carrying a knife - he’s the shadow justice secretary.

Of course it was a stunt, he’s in opposition! It has however embarrassed those who can take action into doing so. So much of this discourse is essentially ‘I don’t like the bloke and I’d rather the salience of petty crime wasn’t raised’

Nope, I don’t like the bloke due to the corruption when he was in a position of power.

[C69]

I just can’t take the man seriously at all, mainly due to the whiffy smell coming off all manner of planning deals involving Tory donors.
This was a stunt, he didn’t bother to report a guy who said he was carrying a knife - he’s the shadow justice secretary.

Of course it was a stunt, he’s in opposition! It has however embarrassed those who can take action into doing so. So much of this discourse is essentially ‘I don’t like the bloke and I’d rather the salience of petty crime wasn’t raised’

Nope, I don’t like the bloke due to the corruption when he was in a position of power.

Not reporting a man carrying a knife. Jesus Christ he is such a dick.
The ITV interview was a massive embarrassment, Susanna Reed eviscerated him.

[Biffer]

I just can’t take the man seriously at all, mainly due to the whiffy smell coming off all manner of planning deals involving Tory donors.
This was a stunt, he didn’t bother to report a guy who said he was carrying a knife - he’s the shadow justice secretary.

Of course it was a stunt, he’s in opposition! It has however embarrassed those who can take action into doing so. So much of this discourse is essentially ‘I don’t like the bloke and I’d rather the salience of petty crime wasn’t raised’

Nope, I don’t like the bloke due to the corruption when he was in a position of power.

Same here. Can’t just write off the stench of the previous administration hat these cunts were all a part of.

[SaintK]

I just can’t take the man seriously at all, mainly due to the whiffy smell coming off all manner of planning deals involving Tory donors.
This was a stunt, he didn’t bother to report a guy who said he was carrying a knife - he’s the shadow justice secretary.

Of course it was a stunt, he’s in opposition! It has however embarrassed those who can take action into doing so. So much of this discourse is essentially ‘I don’t like the bloke and I’d rather the salience of petty crime wasn’t raised’

Nope, I don’t like the bloke due to the corruption when he was in a position of power.

It wasn't just the £45M he saved Richard Desmond (shortly after he had a donation to the Tories). Some of the donations he received for his election and leadership campaigns from the Conservative Friends of Israel were untraceable and likely from off shore companies. He also played at pork barrel politics when he was SEcretary to the Treasury, signing of £millions to Tory constituencies and refused to let the Public Accounts Committee see any of the documents related to how nearly £3 billion was apportioned.
He is the epitome of a Tory piece of shit

Mr Jenrick and his junior minister, Jake Berry, swapped over decisions to award towns in their respective constituencies of Newark and Darwen in Berry’s Rossendale and Darwen constituency some £50m in regeneration money from the national town fund. Mr Berry approved the money for Newark and Mr Jenrick the money for Darwen.

[Tichtheid]

Of course it was a stunt, he’s in opposition! It has however embarrassed those who can take action into doing so. So much of this discourse is essentially ‘I don’t like the bloke and I’d rather the salience of petty crime wasn’t raised’

Nope, I don’t like the bloke due to the corruption when he was in a position of power.

It wasn't just the £45M he saved Richard Desmond (shortly after he had a donation to the Tories). Some of the donations he received for his election and leadership campaigns from the Conservative Friends of Israel were untraceable and likely from off shore companies. He also played at pork barrel politics when he was SEcretary to the Treasury, signing of £millions to Tory constituencies and refused to let the Public Accounts Committee see any of the documents related to how nearly £3 billion was apportioned.
He is the epitome of a Tory piece of shit

Mr Jenrick and his junior minister, Jake Berry, swapped over decisions to award towns in their respective constituencies of Newark and Darwen in Berry’s Rossendale and Darwen constituency some £50m in regeneration money from the national town fund. Mr Berry approved the money for Newark and Mr Jenrick the money for Darwen.

Imagine being dismissed by Bozo Johnson ffs!

[robmatic]

Sad state of affairs when it takes someone widely regarded as a bellend to spur the authorities into taking action that is broadly popular and increases civic wellbeing.

[Paddington Bear]

Sad state of affairs when it takes someone widely regarded as a bellend to spur the authorities into taking action that is broadly popular and increases civic wellbeing.

The ire he’s generated is because he’s not supposed to expose that you can just sort these sort of things out rather than having to pretend not to be bothered and that it’s just one of those things, part and parcel of London life.

See also on bellends and calls to action - Tom Harwood cleaning graffiti off of tube trains. We have some problems which have no easy solutions, but a lot of this stuff just takes, you know, actually trying.

[Tichtheid]

What the fuck don't you people get about this? Jenrick was elected and subsequently it was found that the Tories had contravened electoral rules over spending in that by-election.
Then he oversaw multiple dodgy planning applications and other dodgy affiliations - just take a quick gander at his Wiki page.

The ire he engenders has nothing to do with fare dodging, it's to do with corruption and it's beyond me why you Tory supporters are sweeping this under the carpet and enabling a man who has no place in public life due to a series of misconducts, misconducts which were even too much for Boris fucking Johnson, eventually.

edit, also, one more thing and I'll give the floor to someone who knows more about Jenrick than I do - does he have a history of publicising fare dodging and other crime? He was part of a Tory government for a long time, ten years both on the back and front benches - has he been pointing out stuff like this since he became an MP?

In November 2013 Jenrick was selected to contest the parliamentary constituency by-election for Newark, where the sitting Conservative MP, Patrick Mercer, had resigned following a cash-for-lobbying scandal.[7] During the campaign Jenrick was criticised by the UK Independence Party's candidate, Roger Helmer, for owning several properties. Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, defended Jenrick, stating that being self-made and successful was nothing to be ashamed of.[9] At the by-election, held on 5 June 2014, won with a majority of 7,403.[10]

In February 2016 Channel 4 News alleged overspending in Jenrick's by-election victory.[11] Jenrick said he was confident his election expenses had been compiled in compliance with the law.[12] Nottinghamshire Police took no action as too much time had passed since the alleged offence.[12] In March 2017 the Electoral Commission released a report on their investigation into spending allegations at a number of elections. They concluded that the Conservative Party had contravened the spending rules three times (the 2014 Newark by-election being one of those times) and committed offences twice, and accordingly fined the party £70,000.

He was elected under dodgy circumstances to replace a guy who had resigned for corruption offences

[Paddington Bear]

What the fuck don't you people get about this? Jenrick was elected and subsequently it was found that the Tories had contravened electoral rules over spending in that by-election.
Then he oversaw multiple dodgy planning applications and other dodgy affiliations - just take a quick gander at his Wiki page.

The ire he engenders has nothing to do with fare dodging, it's to do with corruption and it's beyond me why you Tory supporters are sweeping this under the carpet and enabling a man who has no place in public life due to a series of misconducts, misconducts which were even too much for Boris fucking Johnson, eventually.

edit, also, one more thing and I'll give the floor to someone who knows more about Jenrick than I do - does he have a history of publicising fare dodging and other crime? He was part of a Tory government for a long time, ten years both on the back and front benches - has he been pointing out stuff like this since he became an MP?

In November 2013 Jenrick was selected to contest the parliamentary constituency by-election for Newark, where the sitting Conservative MP, Patrick Mercer, had resigned following a cash-for-lobbying scandal.[7] During the campaign Jenrick was criticised by the UK Independence Party's candidate, Roger Helmer, for owning several properties. Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, defended Jenrick, stating that being self-made and successful was nothing to be ashamed of.[9] At the by-election, held on 5 June 2014, won with a majority of 7,403.[10]

In February 2016 Channel 4 News alleged overspending in Jenrick's by-election victory.[11] Jenrick said he was confident his election expenses had been compiled in compliance with the law.[12] Nottinghamshire Police took no action as too much time had passed since the alleged offence.[12] In March 2017 the Electoral Commission released a report on their investigation into spending allegations at a number of elections. They concluded that the Conservative Party had contravened the spending rules three times (the 2014 Newark by-election being one of those times) and committed offences twice, and accordingly fined the party £70,000.

He was elected under dodgy circumstances to replace a guy who had resigned for corruption offences

It’s not that I don’t get it - it’s that I don’t see how it’s relevant to his video about fare dodging, the fact that purely coincidentally there has been a crackdown within a week, and the totally unhinged reaction to it (‘it’s all about you’ - yeah he’s a politician, they’re to a man attention seekers!).

What you’re referring to isn’t wrong but no one here has suggested they want him as PM, and I don’t believe anyone in this thread voted Tory at the last election so describing people as Tory supporters is just untrue. He’s right on this issue and if he’s played a part in forcing TfL to enforce standards then good for him, he’ll have done at least one positive thing in politics.

The question on what he did in government about this is a fair one and has been discussed before. Jenrick to his credit has gone into opposition and been introspective about why the Tories failed in office and how they might return to government. He was of course a minister in this failure. Not allowing petty crime to explode would I think be an uncontroversial step 1 for any centre right government, so to the extent he’s grasped this he does appear to be smarter than his colleagues who seem to think one more Telegraph column and gender neutral toilets and woke school teachers ought to sort it.

What he’s done here is very effective opposition politics - he’s found an issue it’s hard to pretend doesn’t exist, it can be dealt with and hasn’t been.

Fare dodging, shoplifting and phone theft are major talking points in and around London which of course gives it an oversized place in national political discourse. Clearly Labour understand this. You don’t have to love the guy, vote for him or indeed think he’s a decent man to accept on this issue he’s correct, he’s communicated it very effectively and he’s pushed buttons. That’s good opposition politics.

[fishfoodie]

Sad state of affairs when it takes someone widely regarded as a bellend to spur the authorities into taking action that is broadly popular and increases civic wellbeing.

The ire he’s generated is because he’s not supposed to expose that you can just sort these sort of things out rather than having to pretend not to be bothered and that it’s just one of those things, part and parcel of London life.

See also on bellends and calls to action - Tom Harwood cleaning graffiti off of tube trains. We have some problems which have no easy solutions, but a lot of this stuff just takes, you know, actually trying.

On the whole I suspect that regular travelers would prefer that if resources are being deployed, they'd like them deployed in a way that targets the wankers that makes their journeys more painful, not the ones that don't !

They don't see the fare dodgers as a problem (even though they are), but they have; the obnoxious drunks, or the pervs, of the ones smoking or vaping etc. etc, etc, & if the enforcers are, "tackling", the fare dodgers, they're doing less about the ones tackling the shit they do care about !

[Tichtheid]

I don't think you do get it at all - this guy has no right to be in public office due to past misdemeanours and you excusing him and more, talking him up as an effective politician is a large part of why we are where we are with ineffectual and corrupt people in positions of power.

He was part of a party that installed huge cuts to public spending, both at the "soft side" that prevents crime and at the hard edge in detecting and punishing crime, ie the police and the justice system

You can cover for him all you like, but it won't change that.

[Paddington Bear]

Sad state of affairs when it takes someone widely regarded as a bellend to spur the authorities into taking action that is broadly popular and increases civic wellbeing.

The ire he’s generated is because he’s not supposed to expose that you can just sort these sort of things out rather than having to pretend not to be bothered and that it’s just one of those things, part and parcel of London life.

See also on bellends and calls to action - Tom Harwood cleaning graffiti off of tube trains. We have some problems which have no easy solutions, but a lot of this stuff just takes, you know, actually trying.

On the whole I suspect that regular travelers would prefer that if resources are being deployed, they'd like them deployed in a way that targets the wankers that makes their journeys more painful, not the ones that don't !

They don't see the fare dodgers as a problem (even though they are), but they have; the obnoxious drunks, or the pervs, of the ones smoking or vaping etc. etc, etc, & if the enforcers are, "tackling", the fare dodgers, they're doing less about the ones tackling the shit they do care about !

Speaking as someone whose life is somewhat reliant on TfL’s services, as it that of most of my family, friends and acquaintances, your suggestion that we don’t care about fare dodging is totally untrue. In any case, there is almost certainly a very high correlation between the fare dodgers and those committing anti-social behaviour (drunks possibly aside).

As BTP have already found, stop a fare dodger and find out he’s wanted for more serious offences, who’d have thought it. Fare-dodging, much like shoplifting, is demoralising to the law abiding majority, encourages more people to follow suit and is something of a gateway to further rule breaking. There comes a cusp, and we’re not there yet, where it would be totally irrational to pay your fare., of course then you either degrade the service or the taxpayer bails out TfL. Developed societies don’t stand for it.

Not my circus, not my monkeys, but the British left would do well to heed to warning that was the major shift away from the Democrats in urban areas where they allowed petty crime to rise, often with tacit encouragement or a full blind eye. Voters of all stripes very understandably hate this shit and it ends up having a disproportionate impact on elections, much like cocking up bin collections

[Paddington Bear]

I don't think you do get it at all - this guy has no right to be in public office due to past misdemeanours and you excusing him and more, talking him up as an effective politician is a large part of why we are where we are with ineffectual and corrupt people in positions of power.

He was part of a party that installed huge cuts to public spending, both at the "soft side" that prevents crime and at the hard edge in detecting and punishing crime, ie the police and the justice system

You can cover for him all you like, but it won't change that.

Being a decent person and being an effective politician are entirely separate things, hundreds of cases across party lines. And as I keep saying, no one here is touting him as their dream PM so any discussion along those lines is irrelevant to what was being talked about. He produced a smart video that’s embarrassed the government, nothing more.

His right to be in public office comes from his position as the elected MP for Newark, notably I live hundreds of miles from Newark so did not and would not have voted for him. Don’t have to love him - he did well here. I suspect he’d cause Labour far more issues as LOTO than Badenoch, and suspect the reaction to this in some quarters stems from this.

No argument about his record in office and I have in fact referenced it multiple times since the discourse on his video started

[Tichtheid]

I don't think you do get it at all - this guy has no right to be in public office due to past misdemeanours and you excusing him and more, talking him up as an effective politician is a large part of why we are where we are with ineffectual and corrupt people in positions of power.

He was part of a party that installed huge cuts to public spending, both at the "soft side" that prevents crime and at the hard edge in detecting and punishing crime, ie the police and the justice system

You can cover for him all you like, but it won't change that.

Being a decent person and being an effective politician are entirely separate things, hundreds of cases across party lines. And as I keep saying, no one here is touting him as their dream PM so any discussion along those lines is irrelevant to what was being talked about. He produced a smart video that’s embarrassed the government, nothing more.

His right to be in public office comes from his position as the elected MP for Newark, notably I live hundreds of miles from Newark so did not and would not have voted for him. Don’t have to love him - he did well here. I suspect he’d cause Labour far more issues as LOTO than Badenoch, and suspect the reaction to this in some quarters stems from this.

No argument about his record in office and I have in fact referenced it multiple times since the discourse on his video started

You've got this completely arse backwards, what you are doing is similar to what the Tories did in power and actually in their previous attempts, in that you are saying the corruption doesn't matter - he got elected, so he has the right to be there, no matter that the party was fined for breaking electoral law.

Fuck that, nothing changes and the stench gets worse as long as we accept people like this in public life

and as I'm here, since when is this guy an effective politician? What did he do about petty crime whilst in office? I guess he was too busy making deals with donors to do anything effective for the public.

[Biffer]

[quote="Paddington Bear" post_id=408960 time=1749420331 user_id=270]
[quote=Tichtheid post_id=408957 time=1749419345 user_id=632]
I don't think you do get it at all - this guy has no right to be in public office due to past misdemeanours and you excusing him and more, talking him up as an effective politician is a large part of why we are where we are with ineffectual and corrupt people in positions of power.

He was part of a party that installed huge cuts to public spending, both at the "soft side" that prevents crime and at the hard edge in detecting and punishing crime, ie the police and the justice system

You can cover for him all you like, but it won't change that.
[/quote]

Being a decent person and being an effective politician are entirely separate things, hundreds of cases across party lines. And as I keep saying, no one here is touting him as their dream PM so any discussion along those lines is irrelevant to what was being talked about. He produced a smart video that’s embarrassed the government, nothing more.

His right to be in public office comes from his position as the elected MP for Newark, notably I live hundreds of miles from Newark so did not and would not have voted for him. Don’t have to love him - he did well here. I suspect he’d cause Labour far more issues as LOTO than Badenoch, and suspect the reaction to this in some quarters stems from this.

No argument about his record in office and I have in fact referenced it multiple times since the discourse on his video started
[/quote]

If he was in any way effective or capable he would have done something noteworthy when he was in government. If he gave a shit about any of these issues he would have done something about it when he was in government. He doesn’t actually give a fuck about any of this, and doesn’t actually want much done as it’d mean he wouldn’t be able to howl about it in the daily mail or telegraph.

[Tichtheid]

For the record, I think people should pay their fares just as people and companies should pay their taxes. I think the police numbers should not have been cut and I know in some areas of the country it is having a huge impact of day to day life.

I don't think it's just a simple case of "well the staff should do something", there is a lot more to it than that when someone on ten quid an hour in a shop is supposed to stop a 20 something man nicking food or alcohol.

I went into my dentists in Brighton last year and they had just had a guy come in and rifle though cupboards looking for drugs, whilst brandishing a knife, maybe Jenrck would have stepped in and forced the man to the ground until the police arrived, but the women in the dentists weren't able to do that

[Paddington Bear]

His record in office has been dealt with roughly 1,000 times and would be more relevant if I was either touting him as PM or defending it

[Tichtheid]

His record in office has been dealt with roughly 1,000 times and would be more relevant if I was either touting him as PM or defending it

Are the cuts to police numbers and criminal justice system relevant to this discussion?

[Paddington Bear]

His record in office has been dealt with roughly 1,000 times and would be more relevant if I was either touting him as PM or defending it

Are the cuts to police numbers and criminal justice system relevant to this discussion?

Yes, which is why I’ve said previously that the Tories bear primary responsibility for the growth in petty crime, that the Tory record in government is poor to put it mildly and Jenrick was a minister in that government.