Sajid Javid

Hendrickxz · Post by **Hendrickxz** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:17 am

New Home Secretary

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:23 am

Hendrickxz wrote:New Home Secretary

Oh dear.....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:25 am

He has the best instagram profile pic ever.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:33 am

Almost always voted against a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK
1 vote for, 13 votes against, 2 absences, between 2016–2017

Consistently voted for a stricter asylum system
6 votes for, 0 votes against, 2 absences, between 2015–2016

Generally voted for requiring the mass retention of information about communications
3 votes for, 0 votes against, 4 absences, between 2014–2016

Almost always voted for stronger enforcement of immigration rules
7 votes for, 0 votes against, 2 absences, between 2015–2016

Consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities
3 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2016

Almost always voted for restricting the scope of legal aid
11 votes for, 1 vote against, between 2011–2014

He's basically Judge Dredd

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:37 am

Apart from the right to remain for EU nationals, which I think should stand, the rest I'm happy with, he'll do for me.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:38 am

You are fine with the mass surveillance of people's communications and activities?!?

Crikey

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:40 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You are fine with people using Facebook?!?

Crikey

Fixed that for you, Lancs...

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:42 am

hahahaaha!

Good point!

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:53 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You are fine with the mass surveillance of people's communications and activities?!?

Crikey

If it helps protect the country, then yes. Only the guilty have things to hide, and the nations safety is far more important than an individual.
The only issue I would have is how do you Police the Police, if they are the ones with access.
All the terrorist atrocities in the world, or most of them are brought about via e-mails, texting, internet sites. We have the ability to stop that. To refuse to do it because someone is ashamed of going on some porn site is mind numbingly stupid.
I know there are other issues, but there is a bigger picture here.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:57 am

There is a balance to be had though Colburn, and what we have at the moment is already pushing what is acceptable in a democratic society.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:00 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote: To refuse to do it because someone is ashamed of going on some porn site is mind numbingly stupid.

No need to bring Damien Green into this

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:33 pm

as housing, communities and local government secretary, he's overseen no social housing built, communities doing their own bin collections and local governments verging on insolvency so the prospects of the home office are looking great.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:45 pm

“Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband”

Tweets that do not age well.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:48 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:If it helps protect the country, then yes. Only the guilty have things to hide, and the nations safety is far more important than an individual.
The only issue I would have is how do you Police the Police, if they are the ones with access.
All the terrorist atrocities in the world, or most of them are brought about via e-mails, texting, internet sites. We have the ability to stop that. To refuse to do it because someone is ashamed of going on some porn site is mind numbingly stupid.
I know there are other issues, but there is a bigger picture here.

See you bought into the government mass propaganda campaign, have a read of 1984.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:50 pm

Something about the chap doesn't seem right .... It's when he opens his Ego driven mouth.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:53 pm

May 2015: David Cameron promises to lead a ministry of all the talents.

May 2018: Theresa May somehow clings on to power with a ministry of no discernible talent whatsoever.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:53 pm

I'm happier with this than I was Rudd.

Cirrus_Minor · Post by **Cirrus_Minor** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:56 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:Only the guilty have things to hide...

Oh that old chestnut, I think most people value the freedom to be not considered as worthy of investigation without due cause.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:16 pm

Let's see what this lad can do.

He was a very promising young candidate until a few years ago. Since then he turned his back on his pro-Brexit political beliefs (and found himself on the losing side) and has stalled in his career progress. However, I still like the lad.

On a side note, it is always good to see people from different backgrounds engaging thoroughly with British society like Javid and Kahn but let's judge them both by their words and their actions.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:18 pm

BTW: Having acknowledge his ethnic background myself I am already sick of the phrase "the son of a Pakistani bus driver".

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:33 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:There is a balance to be had though Colburn, and what we have at the moment is already pushing what is acceptable in a democratic society.

I don't disagree, but there has to be a level of common sense. IF the police believe even remotely that someone is a threat, then they should have licence to do whatever is necessary to prove or disprove it. At the moment it's as if they have to prove it first before they can invade someones 'privacy'. By then it's often too late.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:37 pm

Got to judge him on his actions rather than his past of course, but the post above listing his past votes on mass surveillance and restriction of legal aid is very worrying.

Weird his opposition to immigration given his background, but he can have whatever opinion he wants.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:40 pm

Falcon wrote:Got to judge him on his actions rather than his past of course, but the post above listing his past votes on mass surveillance and restriction of legal aid is very worrying.

Weird his opposition to immigration given his background, but he can have whatever opinion he wants.

Not weird at all. Many people of ethnic origin can see that immigration was out of control. It's only the PC brigade that chuck the racist argument.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:44 pm

Falcon wrote:Got to judge him on his actions rather than his past of course, but the post above listing his past votes on mass surveillance and restriction of legal aid is very worrying.
Weird his opposition to immigration given his background, but he can have whatever opinion he wants.

Those postings are worrying at all - they are just a bunch of subjective statements by our resident troll who isn't even worth engaging.

Javid's background doesn't make his position on immigration weird; it explains his position on immigration. If you stop thinking of immigration as an issue where people are "pro" or "anti" and start thinking about it in terms of "what kind of controls should we, as a sovereign nation, put in place to control immigration?" then everything starts to make sense.

Javid simply wants to place effective controls on immigration and for immigration control to be decided by our elected Parliament. He's a fan of controlled, legal immigration and not keen on uncontrolled immigration or illegal immigration. That's perfectly in line with his background as he is the son of perfectly legal and upstanding immigrants.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:46 pm

Plenty of sense spoken there Rowls.

Course, he's now got a job in which he's got to control immigration without setting targets, and "humanely" deport people.

Its beyond all our current politicians that.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:52 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:Not weird at all. Many people of ethnic origin can see that immigration was out of control. It's only the PC brigade that chuck the racist argument.

Please don't use phrases like 'PC Brigade', it devalues your point.

Attack the argument, not the person. That's the issue with about 90% of online political debate (including on here) and it comes from both sides of every argument. Stop labelling your opponents.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:54 pm

I don't see why there shouldn't be targets for deporting illegal immigrants - as long as there are accurate estimates of how many are living here.

The problem with the windrush scandal is that politicians and officials failed to take their situation into account and also went after easy targets rather than tackling genuine illegal immigrants. Then they confounded it all by apparently ignoring several warnings.

It is without doubt, the worst thing I can remember a Conservative government doing in since the turn of the century. They'll get no support from me whatsoever on this matter. Often these things are political footballs but this is just a massive disgrace. It's shoddy from start to finish. If you want a controlled immigration system then step one is supporting the people who do things properly, especially when they actually British citizens.

Of course, the whole thing about deporting illegal immigrants is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and is demonstrative of how shambolic our immigration system has become since 1997.

Good luck to Javid, I say, with this poisoned chalice. It weakens May yet again.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:10 pm

He gets it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:15 pm

Gets what?

He's trumpting the government line until the government line changes again. Nothing to see there at all.

as long as there are accurate estimates of how many are living here.

That is the problem right there, no one knows, and people pretending that there are millions has put us in the situation where we are now.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:18 pm

It's clear now that the United Kingdom should never have joined the European Union. In many ways, it’s a failing project, an overblown bureaucracy in need of wide-ranging and urgent reform.

Had we never taken the fateful decision to sign up, the UK would still, of course, be a successful country with a strong economy.

We would be an independent trading nation like the US, Japan, or Canada.

Over the years, we would have developed trade agreements with the EU and with others, all without surrendering control over immigration or our economic independence.

If this year’s referendum were a vote on whether to join in the first place, I wouldn’t hesitate to stand up and say Britain would be better off staying out.

But the question we’re faced with is not about what we should have done 43 years ago. It’s about what we should do now, in 2016.

That’s why, with a heavy heart and no enthusiasm, I shall be voting for the UK to remain a member of the European Union.

As I’ve said before, a vote to leave the EU is not something I’m afraid of. I’d embrace the opportunities such a move would create and I have no doubt that, after leaving, Britain would be able to secure trade agreements not just with the EU, but with many others too.

The great unanswerable question is how long that would all take – and at what short-term cost?

Ignore the scare stories about a vindictive EU snubbing the UK – it simply couldn’t afford to, and an agreement letting the UK maintain its current level of access to EU markets would, eventually, materialise. But it would require the unanimous consent of all 27 remaining members – something that simply cannot be achieved overnight.

When a deal is reached, it may require us to accept the same blizzard of regulations that’s imposed by Brussels not just on member states, but on countries like Norway and Switzerland that need access to European markets.

And, like them, it’s possible we would have no say over what those regulations contained, while still potentially paying an access fee.

The same applies further afield. The EU – including the UK – currently has preferential trade deals in place with 53 countries and territories around the world.

These complex agreements have been built up over the course of nearly half a century, and nobody can say how many years will pass while they are unpicked and rewoven for a post-Brexit Britain. I worked in international business long enough to know that uncertainty is the single biggest enemy of growth.

The negotiations would end well for Britain, but we have no idea what the economic cost would be in the meantime – how much foreign investment would go elsewhere, how much domestic investment would be deferred or cancelled.

Even the most committed members of the ‘leave’ camp accept that there will inevitably be a short-term cost to leaving.

The question is whether it is balanced out by the long-term gains. It’s a very reasonable question – and I came incredibly close to answering ‘Yes, yes it is.’

But, in recent months, we have once again seen storm clouds gathering over the global economy. As a former financial analyst, I still take a keen interest in the markets. Far more important than what the commentators are saying is what the markets are forecasting: a significant global economic downturn.

The fallout from a ‘leave’ vote this summer would only add to economic turbulence that is, quite possibly, about to engulf the world.

Some have even warned that Brexit could precipitate the total collapse of the EU, and while I know that many might welcome such a prospect, the shockwaves could prove catastrophic in the current climate.

My heart says we are better off out. My head says it’s too risky right now. For the past six years, I’ve been doing everything I can to repair the damage Labour did to our national economy.

I’m no europhile, but nor am I prepared to risk undoing all that work and casting aside all the sacrifices we asked of this country while the post-Brexit talks drag on and investor confidence wavers. Staying in the EU for now doesn’t have to mean accepting the status quo.

I am disappointed by the scope and scale of the reforms offered by the European Council. However, thanks to the Prime Minister, it is definitely a step in the right direction – and, crucially, one that shows reform is possible.

This package shows that Britain can exert influence over the future direction of the EU. And an opportunity to secure more significant reform is just around the corner. Even fans of the EU will admit that further treaty changes are needed to fix crises such as the Eurozone meltdown.

And when that happens, pro-reform nations will be in an extremely strong negotiating position. ‘Yes, we will give you the change you want, but only if you give us the change we need’ – and I’m particularly thinking of taking back control of immigration by ending the unrestricted freedom of movement.

For me, this referendum does not have to be a once-in-a-generation event. The fight for reform is not over and if Brussels fails to recognise that, I can see a time when walking away may be the right thing to do – but in a more benign global economic environment and under a UK Government that makes a credible case for leaving.

For now, we stay, and we fight.

So when I go to cast my vote in June, I’ll only be thinking about one thing – what is right for my country and for my family.

And whether it means agreeing with me or not, I’d urge you to do the same.

https://www.sajidjavid.com/eu-referendum

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:21 pm

Sajid Javid last year described the Single Market as a “great invention” and praised the extent to which it has benefited British businesses.

"I still believe that Britain is better off in. And that’s all because of the Single Market. It’s a great invention, one that even Lady Thatcher campaigned enthusiastically to create. The world’s largest economic bloc, it gives every business in Britain access to 500 million customers with no barriers, no tariffs and no local legislation to worry about."

Sajid Javid, Telegraph, 16 May 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... -a-lost-d/

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:34 pm

Rowls wrote:Let's see what this lad can do.

He was a very promising young candidate until a few years ago. Since then he turned his back on his pro-Brexit political beliefs (and found himself on the losing side) and has stalled in his career progress. However, I still like the lad.

On a side note, it is always good to see people from different backgrounds engaging thoroughly with British society like Javid and Kahn but let's judge them both by their words and their actions.

Khan is experiencing a blood bath in London and so far has come up very short of answers.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:37 pm

Falcon wrote:Please don't use phrases like 'PC Brigade', it devalues your point.

Attack the argument, not the person. That's the issue with about 90% of online political debate (including on here) and it comes from both sides of every argument. Stop labelling your opponents.

Quite right PC brigade should be re-titled Wet Farts.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:06 pm

Falcon wrote:Please don't use phrases like 'PC Brigade', it devalues your point.

Attack the argument, not the person. That's the issue with about 90% of online political debate (including on here) and it comes from both sides of every argument. Stop labelling your opponents.

Perhaps it's because I get tired of being called a racist because I support Brexit. I hate racism, always have. The immigration situation has spiralled out of control for years, yet the main argument supporting it is so flawed, including the racist card. I can recall a poll in a Polish community, who all thought immigration was out of control.
It doesn't appear to be the ethnic community shouting it's unfair, but a vocal minority of well intentioned but naive left wingers. Who like to make capital of how ' fair minded ' they are by pursuing a cause no one but themselves can find a problem with.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:20 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:Perhaps it's because I get tired of being called a racist because I support Brexit. I hate racism, always have. The immigration situation has spiralled out of control for years, yet the main argument supporting it is so flawed, including the racist card. I can recall a poll in a Polish community, who all thought immigration was out of control.
It doesn't appear to be the ethnic community shouting it's unfair, but a vocal minority of well intentioned but naive left wingers. Who like to make capital of how ' fair minded ' they are by pursuing a cause no one but themselves can find a problem with.

That's the thing though. You've got to rise above being labelled by other people. Labelling them back just brings you down to their level.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:42 pm

Stayingup wrote:Khan is experiencing a blood bath in London and so far has come up very short of answers.

Agreed but that wasn't the point I was making. I dislike Khan's politics but is he at least engaging positively in mainstream British society. And as relative as it may be, he represents the most tiniest minority of the liberal end of the spectrum of modern Islam. No matter how ineffective or lame his mayoralty might be proving.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:02 pm

Rowls wrote:I don't see why there shouldn't be targets for deporting illegal immigrants - as long as there are accurate estimates of how many are living here.

The problem with the windrush scandal is that politicians and officials failed to take their situation into account and also went after easy targets rather than tackling genuine illegal immigrants. Then they confounded it all by apparently ignoring several warnings.

The target for considering the cases of legal immigrants ought to be 100%. Every single illegal immigrant should have his or her case considered, and then either allowed to stay or deported depending on circumstances. (Without 'benefit' of the European Court of Human Rights' input.)

The Windrush problem was that they weren't even trying to deport illegal immigrants, they were just trying to deport people. Their target was to deport a certain number of people, but they had little interest in whether they were here legally or not.

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:23 pm

"Khan is experiencing a bloodbath in London and so far has come up very short of answers"

It is no coincidence that since the imposition of the Tories ideological austerity in 2010, knife crime, gang violence and fatalities in the capital have soared. Since 2010 London's Metropolitan Police has lost 1,850 officers. Central Government is responsible for 70 percent of Metropolitan Police funding and that funding has been cut by £700m since 2010 - around 40 percent.

In February of 2018 Sadiq Khan announced an extra £110m of funding for the Met Police. City Hall is now paying a greater percentage of police funding than ever before - 23 percent of the police budget up from just 18 percent in 2010.

The Tories massive cuts to the Met have been utterly disastrous for overall police manpower in London: police staff posts have dropped from 14,330 to 9,985, police community support officers have fallen from 4,607 to 1,591 and the capital has lost 114 police station front counters and 120 police buildings.

In the light of these figures it should come as no surprise that the capital is experiencing a sharp rise in violent crime on the streets.

walter the softy · Post by **walter the softy** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:52 pm

Rowls wrote: Javid's background doesn't make his position on immigration weird; it explains his position on immigration.

Totally agree with the sentiment Rowls regarding his background. People should be able to think and say what they want and be what they want to be regardless of their background as long as they respect the wider society with it. Putting people into a certain category of how they should be or what opinions they should have because they come from a certain background is patronising b*llocks in my opinion.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:24 pm

Rowls wrote:Those postings are worrying at all - they are just a bunch of subjective statements by our resident troll who isn't even worth engaging.

Javid's background doesn't make his position on immigration weird; it explains his position on immigration. If you stop thinking of immigration as an issue where people are "pro" or "anti" and start thinking about it in terms of "what kind of controls should we, as a sovereign nation, put in place to control immigration?" then everything starts to make sense.

Javid simply wants to place effective controls on immigration and for immigration control to be decided by our elected Parliament. He's a fan of controlled, legal immigration and not keen on uncontrolled immigration or illegal immigration. That's perfectly in line with his background as he is the son of perfectly legal and upstanding immigrants.

This is correct. Many liberals on here don't understand the stance above which I agree with. Hopefully this dispels the myth that anti immigration or controlled immigration = racist.

Think this could be a very promising appointment.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue May 01, 2018 1:13 am

kentonclaret wrote:It is no coincidence that since the imposition of the Tories ideological austerity in 2010, knife crime, gang violence and fatalities in the capital have soared.

More of a red herring than 'no coincidence'. Police numbers have risen and fallen over the years with little correlation between crime figures.

The cause of the current surge in kife related crime correlates well with Theresa May's clampdown on the use of stop and search.

The previous surge in knife crime also correlated in the drop off in stop and search measures.

What London needs is the proper reintroduction of responsible stop and search policing.