To wonder why there's no BBC Panorama documentary into racism in the Tory party?

[jokeynever]

Strange, isn't it? Must be because of the BBC's well known left wing bias.

Rwanda is not off shoring processing as per the Australian system. There is no right to return.

It’s the same system. I’ve put quote in pp showing this

Volbeat you need to get back on those blood thinners...

If deporting migrants is right wing, then importing them must be left wing.

We have had multiple years of record immigration, to the point where 1 in 6 people were born outside the UK; therefore the Tories are left wing.

Simples.

yup tories are left wing, highest taxes, 700,000 migrants winged their over here. So obviously labour are right wing ?
was it you who said you look at a government’s actions ? There you go then 😂

That's some leap in logic there @CoatRack

Again if your morals are so loose that you see nothing inhumane about treating others poorly then I've nothing else to say to you because you aren't capable of producing a decent counterargument. It's just froth and nonsense you spout.

Well said @Saponatheim

I'm getting second hand embarrassment from some of the posters on here. Look at what governments do 🤣🤣🤣🤣 the tories have shafted us all and yet some posters here appear to enjoy the shafting

TIL mass immigration is right wing.

The argument for universal suffrage grows weaker by the second....

All the best volbeat. I wish you luck in your ivory tower, and that you never complain about house prices or NHS wait times.

Yawn, more froth

I’m not sure I understand the point about conspiracy theories. This is just my opinion. Labour are infected by visceral anti-Semitism. This is often met with “but look, the Tories are racist and Islamophobia though”, as if the problem is of the same scale. Racism exists across society and in all parties. But in only one main party is it institutionalised.

I do think that what Hester said was racist though and the Tories’ handling of the situation has been weak.

"Let’s not play oppression olympics."

Labour are infected by visceral anti-Semitism

Do you have some examples of Starmer's anti-Semitism, or the current front bench?

Or do you mean the party membership as a whole? In which case there will be anti-Semites within that membership, just as there are in all walks of life, sadly. Including the Tory party membership.

Oh crikey.

I have just realised the OP has not been back to the thread. This is a wind them up and watch them go, rather than an attempt at starting a serious discussion about racism in the Tory party.

Starmer has taken action to clean up the anti-Semitic poison of the Corbyn era but this doesn’t go away overnight. The problem isn’t a few bad apples - it’s deep-rooted. Racism exists everywhere but there are specific times and places where it can be more and less virulent. At the moment it is on the left. I don’t think the problem of a few Alf Garnetts in the Tories is remotely on the same scale.

That was for your benefit…

What?

I do live in the UK. The UK is my country. I’m pointing out that there is no equivalence in scale between the institutional anti-Semitism in Labour and on the left more generally, and the racism of the Tories, which amounts to a few old dinosaurs blurting out racist words. Still a problem, but not remotely on the same scale.

I also think we need to disentangle the problem of racism, and its consequences, from controversial policies such as the Rwanda scheme that you may not agree with but which are, at least, a matter of legitimate consideration to deal with a policy challenge.

"A few Alf Garnetts" is seriously downplaying the racism and xenophobia in the Tory party.

Okay, so according to you the Windrush scandal which resulted in harassment of the elderly, detention, deportation, lost money, lost jobs, lost homes is less of a problem than the institutional antisemitism in the Labour Party. Now I’m not saying the latter is not a problem, but I don’t know how anybody could reasonably argue that the actual destruction of lives that has come about because of Tory policy is unimportant.

When a policy is deemed by multiple courts to be illegal it cannot also be a legitimate consideration. Come on now.

Please, I’m not arguing that any racism is unimportant. I’m just trying to be proportionate with the comparisons and not let a partisan hatred of the Tories affect my judgement.

The Windrush scandal was a monstrous injustice. The independent report into the scandal didn’t actually find it was an example of institutional racism - it was an “institutional thoughtlessness” about issues of race, still serious enough but closer to bungling incompetence. And hostile environment policies had a long history too - Labour do not get off scot-free either.

On Rwanda, the courts actually found that it was perfectly lawful to send an asylum seeker to another country to have their claim assessed there. The issue was one around assurances that they wouldn’t then be sent back to their home country to be persecuted. Whatever issues one can have with the scheme - its cost, its workability - I honestly can’t see how racism comes into it, and it is legitimate to attempt to manage the problem of people illegally entering the country.

The issue was one around assurances that they wouldn’t then be sent back to their home country to be persecuted.
Actually, the issue is that Rwanda is not a same place to start with. Anyway, why is the UK taking in Rwandan refugees, if it is?
Revealed: UK granted asylum to Rwandan refugees while arguing country was safe | Migration | The Guardian

There is nothing unlawful in sending an asylum seeker to have their claim processed by a third country. In principle it could be Rwanda, it could be anywhere.

The courts did not find the scheme to be lawful. This was because of the risk of refoulement - that is, a person being sent back to a country where they will be persecuted. In effect this amounted to Rwanda being an unsafe country for the purposes of third-country asylum processing. But this is not to say a person definitely will be sent back to their country to be harmed. It doesn’t even mean they are more likely than not. It just means there was a “reasonable likelihood” of refoulement, which legally is a very low threshold. The Government are trying to resolve these concerns by a new treaty with Rwanda to obtain the assurances the court asked for.

On the safety of Rwanda itself, the fact that we accept Rwandan refugees is not relevant as there will be particular reasons pertinent to those claims that won’t apply to non-Rwandans being sent there to be processed.

I’m not necessarily a supporter of the scheme by the way, but it is important to understand what it is and how it works.

And I do not accept that the scheme is evidence of Tory racism. Happy to hear an explanation of how it is.

What that Tory donor is alleged to have said is vile, if true. I hope there is some action DA can take if things are as reported. At least it would be out in the open, and for public scrutiny. Diane Abbott is alleged to receive lots of vile targeting of abuse. I suspect quite a few women MP’s receive abuse, even if some people pretend to not know what a woman is. Put racial abuse on top in DA’s case, and I suspect she is the target of creeps who gleefully heap on even worse abuse. It must be devastating.

The remarks that DA wrote, claiming Jewish people didn’t face racism, only ‘prejudice like redheads’ is a separate issue. I don’t agree with her on that, and think diminishing the hatred of anti-semitism is dangerous and disingenuous.

Angela Raynor isn't exactly covering herself in glory either.

Where?

They don't investigate because they are understandably worried about being punished by the government.

Thanks @Valeriekat, all together now . . . Jeremy Corbyn, Keir's beer with curry, Michael Foot's coat, Sadiq Khan, Angela Rayner . . . 🍺