Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 31, 2022, 02:08:00 PM
-
Well, it should be. But actual integrity doesn't apply here.
https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-apologises-again-as-she-admits-sending-official-govt-documents-to-her-personal-email-on-six-occasions-12734938
-
Added to that her rhetoric is really nasty, her latest gem being "stopping the invasion of the South Coast".
Call me pedantic if you like but I've not noticed marauding hordes raping and pillaging their way through Worthing town centre.
The woman is a disgrace. She is using language that is guaranteed to inflame.
-
Only fair
-
Brilliant.
-
Pinching that.
-
Sunak seems to not have anyone who can replace Braverman as Home Secretary without it costing him politically - presumably any potential replacement would be more incompetent, would probably not be capable of taking the flak Braverman seems to be taking, and would not be perceived by voters who care about this issue to be as strongly opposed to illegal immigration as Braverman is perceived to be.
Are the majority of the British public supporting taking tough immediate action to stop the people-smuggling route of entry into the UK? I actually have no idea but if the polls indicate yes - then as a politician who will face election, Sunak's job is to keep Braverman in place until he can find a competent replacement who is tough enough on this issue to appeal to voters.
-
Sunak seems to not have anyone who can replace Braverman as Home Secretary without it costing him politically - presumably any potential replacement would be more incompetent, would probably not be capable of taking the flak Braverman seems to be taking, and would not be perceived by voters who care about this issue to be as strongly opposed to illegal immigration as Braverman is perceived to be.
Are the majority of the British public supporting taking tough immediate action to stop the people-smuggling route of entry into the UK? I actually have no idea but if the polls indicate yes - then as a politician who will face election, Sunak's job is to keep Braverman in place until he can find a competent replacement who is tough enough on this issue to appeal to voters.
None of which deals with the integrity issue.
-
None of which deals with the integrity issue.
True.
Just being realistic - my impression is that at this point the public care more about a Home Secretary stopping illegal immigration than they do about the Home Secretary's integrity in relation to Ministerial Code for data breaches. Politically therefore it doesn't make sense for Braverman to resign if the public is not prioritising the integrity issue.
And based on past experience with Johnson, amongst others, the MPs in all parties these days seem to have a fairly high tolerance level for incompetence. I guess due to lack of choice - they can't find a competent Minister.
-
True.
Just being realistic - my impression is that at this point the public care more about a Home Secretary stopping illegal immigration than they do about the Home Secretary's integrity in relation to Ministerial Code for data breaches. Politically therefore it doesn't make sense for Braverman to resign if the public is not prioritising the integrity issue.
And based on past experience with Johnson, amongst others, the MPs in all parties these days seem to have a fairly high tolerance level for incompetence. I guess due to lack of choice - they can't find a competent Minister.
Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.
-
Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.
Sure - people who are refugees are not illegal immigrants. A refugee is someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, AND is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.
But people who have been brought here by people smugglers seeking economic improvement don't seem to fall into the category of refugee or asylum seeker. Apparently risk of starvation is not a valid reason to claim asylum...yet.
-
Sure - people who are refugees are not illegal immigrants. A refugee is someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, AND is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.
But people who have been brought here by people smugglers seeking economic improvement don't seem to fall into the category of refugee or asylum seeker. Apparently risk of starvation is not a valid reason to claim asylum...yet.
And one cannot classify them as not being asylum seekers without going through a process. A process starved of funds by succesive govts but particularly recently leading to a huge increase in backlog of processing despite no related increase in applications. If the system is broken as Braverman says, would it not be reasonable to think that the party in govt for 12 years is the one responsible.
-
And one cannot classify them as not being asylum seekers without going through a process. A process starved of funds by succesive govts but particularly recently leading to a huge increase in backlog of processing despite no related increase in applications. If the system is broken as Braverman says, would it not be reasonable to think that the party in govt for 12 years is the one responsible.
Agree with you about funding. Also, successive Home Secretaries from both parties not up to the job of tackling processing refugees. It's a politically toxic situation.
Not sure anyone has the political will or capacity to improve it or implement a solution.
We are in an age of mass displacement. Yet the powerful and stable nations of the world have not figured out a humane way to handle the influx of people claiming persecution while balancing domestic concerns about security and cultural change. Instead, doors are simply closing, with asylum protections rolled back seemingly everywhere.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/02/japan-refugees-asylum-broken/607003/
The option to open up safe channels to seek asylum would still have a cap on the number of asylum seekers a country will accept. Once that cap is reached, people will go to the people smugglers to get them into a country in other ways, using small boats etc.
Amnesty International estimates that, between 2007-2013, before the Syria refugee crisis, the EU spent almost €2bn on fences, surveillance systems and patrols on land or at sea.
In theory, refugees – who have the right to cross borders in search of asylum under international law – should be exempt from these controls. But in reality, the EU has tried to prevent asylum seekers from reaching its territory wherever possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/05/five-myths-about-the-refugee-crisis
Similar stories in countries all over the world that refugees go to seeking asylum.
-
In the panic to make the Manston facility look less overcrowded they seem to have decided to move out some people and abandon them, with no money, nowhere to go and inadequate clothing in random London locations!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/02/home-office-leaves-asylum-seekers-from-manston-stranded-in-central-london
-
Agree with you about funding. Also, successive Home Secretaries from both parties not up to the job of tackling processing refugees. It's a politically toxic situation.
Not sure anyone has the political will or capacity to improve it or implement a solution.
We are in an age of mass displacement. Yet the powerful and stable nations of the world have not figured out a humane way to handle the influx of people claiming persecution while balancing domestic concerns about security and cultural change. Instead, doors are simply closing, with asylum protections rolled back seemingly everywhere.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/02/japan-refugees-asylum-broken/607003/
The option to open up safe channels to seek asylum would still have a cap on the number of asylum seekers a country will accept. Once that cap is reached, people will go to the people smugglers to get them into a country in other ways, using small boats etc.
Amnesty International estimates that, between 2007-2013, before the Syria refugee crisis, the EU spent almost €2bn on fences, surveillance systems and patrols on land or at sea.
In theory, refugees – who have the right to cross borders in search of asylum under international law – should be exempt from these controls. But in reality, the EU has tried to prevent asylum seekers from reaching its territory wherever possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/05/five-myths-about-the-refugee-crisis
Similar stories in countries all over the world that refugees go to seeking asylum.
I think it's a stretch to blame anyone other than the Tories, with maybe the Lib Dems at a stretch for where we are now. They have been in power for 12 years. In addition the rise in the backlog is concentrated in the last 4 years. That other countries who process many times the amount of asylum seekers that we do do not have perfect sysyems does not mean that they don't do it better. And for the Home Secretary who has multiple security breaches, put in place by a PM who talked about integrity in his opening specch in a purely hypocritical manber; to talk about a broken system as if the Tories have nothing to do without it, is demonstration of vacuous dishonesty.
-
Agree with you about funding. Also, successive Home Secretaries from both parties not up to the job of tackling processing refugees. It's a politically toxic situation.
Not sure anyone has the political will or capacity to improve it or implement a solution.
We are in an age of mass displacement. Yet the powerful and stable nations of the world have not figured out a humane way to handle the influx of people claiming persecution while balancing domestic concerns about security and cultural change. Instead, doors are simply closing, with asylum protections rolled back seemingly everywhere.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/02/japan-refugees-asylum-broken/607003/
The option to open up safe channels to seek asylum would still have a cap on the number of asylum seekers a country will accept. Once that cap is reached, people will go to the people smugglers to get them into a country in other ways, using small boats etc.
Amnesty International estimates that, between 2007-2013, before the Syria refugee crisis, the EU spent almost €2bn on fences, surveillance systems and patrols on land or at sea.
In theory, refugees – who have the right to cross borders in search of asylum under international law – should be exempt from these controls. But in reality, the EU has tried to prevent asylum seekers from reaching its territory wherever possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/05/five-myths-about-the-refugee-crisis
Similar stories in countries all over the world that refugees go to seeking asylum.
The fundamental problem is that governments like immigration. It's more people to pay taxes and work and contribute to the economy.
Not only that, a lot of them are absolutely desperate. If somebody's life back in their own country was so bad that they will risk crossing the English Channel in a dinghy with 40 other people, there's very little we can do to make the UK an unattractive destination.
So governments don't want to employ the extreme measures that will stop people from coming in because they would have to be very extreme - more extreme than shipping a handful of immigrants to Rwanda - and they don't really want to stop immigration, anyway.
-
I think it's a stretch to blame anyone other than the Tories, with maybe the Lib Dems at a stretch for where we are now. They have been in power for 12 years. In addition the rise in the backlog is concentrated in the last 4 years. That other countries who process many times the amount of asylum seekers that we do do not have perfect sysyems does not mean that they don't do it better. And for the Home Secretary who has multiple security breaches, put in place by a PM who talked about integrity in his opening specch in a purely hypocritical manber; to talk about a broken system as if the Tories have nothing to do without it, is demonstration of vacuous dishonesty.
I would blame whoever was in charge on the basis the buck stops with them. But don't think any of the other parties would have done any better faced with Brexit and Covid and the increasing numbers crossing the Channel. This BBC article covers a lot of the reasons for the backlog https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63477371
The issue about clunky systems and stressed staff seems to be an issue in various government systems. I have noticed that HMRC service levels have become a complete joke since Covid and it was pretty slow-going before Covid. Just the simple task of registering a change of legal entity for VAT takes months before the documents emailed to HMRC are even uploaded onto the system in order to be assigned to someone to process. There is no one to complain to, no one to speed the process up even when it's an urgent case because of a pending sale of a property that needs to be done as a transfer of a going concern.
Underfunding seems to be a recurring theme for every department, but I'm not convinced that throwing money at a problem always solves the problem. The problem at HMRC seems to be there are very few individuals who know what they are doing - they just don't seem to possess the intelligence to problem-solve so it's not a lack of training issue, more a lack of ability issue. If you phone HMRC 3 different times you will get 3 different answers as it's pot- luck as to whether you will get a member of staff who knows the legislation or how to apply it. They have been given the training but the seem unable to retain the information in their heads. After a while staff sign off sick with stress, which then puts a burden on the rest of the team.
Maybe the Home Office are having the same issue as HMRC with the staff who deal with the asylum system. Given we keep seeing Ministers who seem to lack competence, including Truss while in the top job, hardly surprising I suppose. But I'm not convinced that a Labour government will be brimming with competent individuals who can improve the competency of staff in the civil service.
I also don't think asylum claimants who throw away their papers / passports before they get to the UK helps with the backlog as it becomes a long-winded process to see if they are entitled to stay if it is difficult to verify if they are who they say they are. I personally have spoken to Sri Lankan asylum seekers who said they threw away their papers before landing at Heathrow and gave a false name and some concocted story of persecution - they then had all kinds of complications once they were granted asylum in trying to pass the Money Laundering checks to open a Ltd company to run a business etc. They claimed they and many like them were advised to throw away their ID papers to have a better chance of getting permission to stay in the UK.
I also know Sri Lankans who had their case heard, were denied the right to stay and their solicitor would change the story and basis of their appeal, which meant they could stay for a few more months waiting for their case to be heard. Most of these people seem quite industrious and kept themselves busy working for cash payments.
-
In reply to Gabriella:
None of the above covers that the govt have been using tge ibcreased backlog as an indication of increased numbers not their functional failure, i.e. lying.
As to whether other parties might have done better, who knows but that's irrelevant to the position you suggested that that govts other than the Tories were also to be blame for where we are in 2022. Add in the inflamnatory rhetoric, tge breaking of the law as regards the conditions in Manston, and the vacuous costly posturing about Zimbabwe, and you have an inept incompetent law breaking lying govt
-
The fundamental problem is that governments like immigration. It's more people to pay taxes and work and contribute to the economy.
Not only that, a lot of them are absolutely desperate. If somebody's life back in their own country was so bad that they will risk crossing the English Channel in a dinghy with 40 other people, there's very little we can do to make the UK an unattractive destination.
So governments don't want to employ the extreme measures that will stop people from coming in because they would have to be very extreme - more extreme than shipping a handful of immigrants to Rwanda - and they don't really want to stop immigration, anyway.
I would agree that things are extremely desperate in their own country. But not sure their circumstances once they leave their country and get to France warrant travelling in an overcrowded dinghy across the English Channel. It's only a very small percentage of asylum seekers who make that journey so it may well be a case of the Darwin awards - there are a small minority of incredibly stupid people in the world who make very stupid decisions on behalf of themselves and their children.
There are quite a few Sri Lankan Tamils who claimed asylum in France - none of them spoke a word of French but they picked it up, did their best to ignore the racism and are now well-established.
-
In reply to Gabriella:
None of the above covers that the govt have been using tge ibcreased backlog as an indication of increased numbers not their functional failure, i.e. lying.
I thought Braverman said the asylum system is broken - was that not an admission of failures in the Home Office? The numbers crossing the Channel have increased as well. But yes, no doubt there was lying and no full disclosure going on as well. Given the history of lying in politics, I suspect not many people take what they hear from politicians at face value.
As to whether other parties might have done better, who knows but that's irrelevant to the position you suggested that that govts other than the Tories were also to be blame for where we are in 2022. Add in the inflamnatory rhetoric, tge breaking of the law as regards the conditions in Manston, and the vacuous costly posturing about Zimbabwe, and you have an inept incompetent law breaking lying govt
I was referring to all the criticisms of the asylum system under Labour
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2807893.stm - some quotes below from this article:
But by April 2001, Mr Straw felt able to declare that he felt the UK was "getting on top of the problem".
He said then that the backlog of cases waiting to be handled had fallen dramatically - but a few months later David Blunkett, having taken over at the home office, had to admit that the number of asylum seekers waiting for decisions had been hugely underestimated.
Throughout Labour's period in office, meanwhile, the press has been snapping at the government's heels over asylum, while a stream of court judgements have gone against first Jack Straw and then David Blunkett.
At times the debate has gone right to the heart of British life, with talk of "Britishness" tests and concern over the rise of far-right groups fuelled by anger over asylum.
Mr Blunkett, like Jack Straw before him, has been criticised for many of the measures introduced - and also for his language: talk of asylum seekers' children "swamping" schools caused a big political row.
In September last year, for instance, Mr Blunkett admitted that the government's manifesto commitment to remove 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year was "massively over-ambitious".
-
I would agree that things are extremely desperate in their own country. But not sure their circumstances once they leave their country and get to France warrant travelling in an overcrowded dinghy across the English Channel.
That isn't the point. The fact that they are prepared to do it shows that these people have amazing determination and whatever barriers we try to put in their way are likely to be inadequate.
[/quote]
-
I thought Braverman said the asylum system is broken - was that not an admission of failures in the Home Office? ...
That you are phrasing it as the 'Home Office' is highlighting the attempt to try and have this seen as a Civil Service failure, not a government one. There is an approach in this Tory govt, and indeed in Holyrood under the SNP, to try to keep the govt being seen as an opposition. It echoes the Narxisy phrase 'permanent revolution' and there's always been a bit of it about but it's now rampant. It's partly the readon for Tory Party changing leader as frequently as they have been doing.
As to Labour, the very fact that you are mentioning Blunkett and Straw underlines how long ago you are talking about. The Tories have been in govt for 12 years. The current state of the govt on immigration is their problem.
-
That isn't the point. The fact that they are prepared to do it shows that these people have amazing determination and whatever barriers we try to put in their way are likely to be inadequate.
True - there is no evidence that there are measures that the UK can put in place that deter this. Australia's navy turned boats around in the ocean, but the boats asylum seekers were travelling on were much bigger than the dinghies so easier to spot and stop.
Australia faced domestic and international condemnation and soaring costs by their off-shore processing of asylum seekers. Israel had a secretive 'voluntary departure' Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers, which was abandoned as it didn't work. The asylum seekers were not allowed to settle in Rwanda so they just joined the migrant route to Europe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-61882542
-
That you are phrasing it as the 'Home Office' is highlighting the attempt to try and have this seen as a Civil Service failure, not a government one.
I think it is a government failure - we were talking about the Home Secretary, who is the head of the Home Office, so is responsible for failures in the Home Office. The Govt's policies on asylum and immigration have been incompetent. The Govt incompetence would have been amplified by the performance of people working in the Civil Service. The Civil Service are known for having a much better work-life balance than the private sector, reflected by the difference in pay. This may mean that more skilled people go into the private sector in order to get the higher salaries on offer. This may have an impact on the effectiveness of the civil service. I really started to notice when dealing repeatedly with HMRC recently that it is like operating in a developing country - things don't work or get done. They seem to be operating at a snail's pace.
There is an approach in this Tory govt, and indeed in Holyrood under the SNP, to try to keep the govt being seen as an opposition. It echoes the Narxisy phrase 'permanent revolution' and there's always been a bit of it about but it's now rampant. It's partly the readon for Tory Party changing leader as frequently as they have been doing.
I didn't understand this - please explain again. Why does the govt being seen as an opposition help the govt?
As to Labour, the very fact that you are mentioning Blunkett and Straw underlines how long ago you are talking about. The Tories have been in govt for 12 years. The current state of the govt on immigration is their problem.
Yes I agree the current state is the Tory govt's problem. I just don't have much faith in a different govt alleviating the problem.
-
Yes I agree the current state is the Tory govt's problem. I just don't have much faith in a different govt alleviating the problem.
And therein lies the success of the Conservatives. Convince people that politicians are all the same and there is much less impetus to vote for change.
It's nonsense of course. But very successful nonsense.
-
...
I didn't understand this - please explain again. Why does the govt being seen as an opposition help the govt?
.....
It's because they avoid accountability. Language is important - so Braverman, and indeed Patel 2 years ago, refer to immigration being broken. They don't say 'We broke it'. Similarly Sunak talks about the need to fix the economy, ignoring that he was Chancellor, and that it's been a Tory Govt for 12 years. That's also why the point about portratubg it as the Civil Service is important. When Amber Rudd was being challenged about the 'hostile environment', she went on about Home Office culture, deliberately ignoring the roke of Theresa May as Home Secretary.
-
And therein lies the success of the Conservatives. Convince people that politicians are all the same and there is much less impetus to vote for change.
It's nonsense of course. But very successful nonsense.
Yes, the Conservatives have behaved like headless chickens as regards the asylum/immigration problems. I would certainly criticise them and the Home Office for the appalling lack of any coherent and workable policy but I would also support Violent Gabriella when she suggested that she doesn't have much faith in a different govt doing any better.
The history of the Blair/Brown years as regards the immigration question didn't exactly fill me with confidence either.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story
-
Yes, the Conservatives have behaved like headless chickens as regards the asylum/immigration problems. I would certainly criticise them and the Home Office for the appalling lack of any coherent and workable policy but I would also support Violent Gabriella when she suggested that she doesn't have much faith in a different govt doing any better.
The history of the Blair/Brown years as regards the immigration question didn't exactly fill me with confidence either.
Possibly, but reelecting the same bunch of proven incompetents is not going to even give you the chance of a different outcome. At the moment watching the UK is a bit like watching a man play a fixed one-arm bandit hoping that next time he'll win.
-
Possibly, but reelecting the same bunch of proven incompetents is not going to even give you the chance of a different outcome. At the moment watching the UK is a bit like watching a man play a fixed one-arm bandit hoping that next time he'll win.
Not just incomptetent but law breaking, using inflammatory language, and wasting money on the nonsense of Zimbabwe just to do a bit of posturing
-
Zimbabwe?
-
Yes, the Conservatives have behaved like headless chickens as regards the asylum/immigration problems. I would certainly criticise them and the Home Office for the appalling lack of any coherent and workable policy but I would also support Violent Gabriella when she suggested that she doesn't have much faith in a different govt doing any better.
The history of the Blair/Brown years as regards the immigration question didn't exactly fill me with confidence either.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story
The problems are insolvable given the differing outlooks of those attempting to migrate to escape persecution, poverty or even to improve their lives and of those in relatively rich nations who seem to think that they have reached a position that they have to defend without consideration of the well being of others - even those whose wealth and freedom they have stolen or destroyed.
-
Zimbabwe?
Rwanda - senior moment
-
This Rwanda scheme - I take it the government has done a deal with the Rwandan government, and isn't planning to just dump them in Rwanda whether its government likes it or not?
-
This Rwanda scheme - I take it the government has done a deal with the Rwandan government, and isn't planning to just dump them in Rwanda whether its government likes it or not?
In theory, yes. But I wouldn't tempt them with the idea.
-
On the waste of £140m so far on the Rwandan deal
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-pays-rwanda-extra-20m-despite-no-migrant-deportations-8nxmwfwt7
-
The problems are insolvable given the differing outlooks of those attempting to migrate to escape persecution, poverty or even to improve their lives and of those in relatively rich nations who seem to think that they have reached a position that they have to defend without consideration of the well being of others - even those whose wealth and freedom they have stolen or destroyed.
Yes I would agree with that assessment.
If I was in the position of migrants, I would almost certainly bend the truth to get an opportunity to better my life - different people will bend the truth to different degrees. So many people lie or exaggerate in so many areas of their life - job interviews, relationships, business deals, politics.
No doubt to a migrant, it seems like they are battling against a bureaucracy that is largely indifferent to their struggles. Migrants/ asylum seekers probably do not feel as if they are seen as individuals and if no one cares about them as individuals or the struggles of their life why should they, as the migrant, care about the struggles of nameless, faceless British people?
-
And therein lies the success of the Conservatives. Convince people that politicians are all the same and there is much less impetus to vote for change.
It's nonsense of course. But very successful nonsense.
I don't think it is an assessment of just politicians. It is an assessment of people. Regardless of having good intentions many people, including many politicians in all the political parties, are somewhat incompetent in much of what they attempt, and somewhat ineffective in much of what they attempt or if they do happen to be effective in some area of their job they might be ineffective or incompetent in certain aspects of their personal life - they might be a lousy husband or wife or bend the rules but have exceptional skills in strategic thinking or leadership or negotiating or financial aptitude.
If we're talking about politics specifically and voting for change - once upon a time the Tories were seen as lacking compassion and nuance and seemed totally self-absorbed. Unfortunately, now that Labour has become so obsessed with identity politics and shutting down debate and ripping people to shreds for saying the wrong thing and trying to destroy their livelihood, the Labour party now also seems full of people who lack compassion and nuance and are totally self-absorbed - maybe in a different way from the Tories but same outcome - you become invisible to them. I don't think it's nonsense that I can't trust people who are obsessed with dogma and ideology - regardless of whether it is Tory or Labour dogma and ideology.
-
once upon a time the Tories were seen as lacking compassion and nuance and seemed totally self-absorbed.
Sorry, I couldn't get beyond the past tense in your sentence.
-
Does anyone else keep wanting to call her Suella Benjamin, by confusion with Floella Benjamin, Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham, actress, children's TV presenter, Lib Dem peer and all-round good egg, in contrast to Nutella, the chinless wonder, who is definitely a bad egg?
-
Sorry, I couldn't get beyond the past tense in your sentence.
Ha! Yes Tories are still lacking in those qualities.
Labour seems to have joined in now, but it manifests differently from the Tories.
Not really sure about compassion towards migrants as being more worthy than compassion towards the indigenous population who are struggling. When I came to Britain in the 70s my family didn't really have any illusions about living in a non-racist society. We had just left a racist society. All the communities were racist in Sri Lanka. That doesn't mean every single person is a racist but generally racism is understandable even if it is not correct. You will find it in India, the continent of Africa, Europe, the Middle East, the far East - people are suspicious of people with different cultural behaviour - other people's cultural norms are hard to understand and can come across as hostile even when not intended to be. Also people generally don't adapt well to rapid change.
Many of us brown people know this about other brown, black people and make allowances for their suspicion and resistance to change and try to be diplomatic and mindful and understanding of their prejudice. Because that usually works better and has a better outcome than calling them names and dismissing their concerns. So many of us took this approach to white people when we came here. Especially if you are fairly aspirational and not the type of person who feels like a victim. We know racism is stupid and irrational - but human beings can be stupid and irrational - so you work around it and hopefully over time as people get to know you, the understanding and tolerance increases and we all become a community.
Hopefully the brown people in the Tory Cabinet will take that pragmatic diplomatic approach to racism - especially if they grew up in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s and if they have spent a lot of time amongst their racist brown communities and visited their country of origin on a fairly regular basis to remind them of the normal racism in their own communities.
I really don't get why white people in Britian TODAY spend so much time worrying about being racist.
ETA: I should clarify that I mean worrying about being racist because they are suspicious of asylum seekers and migrants.
I think people should worry about being racist in other areas e.g. policing
-
Does anyone else keep wanting to call her Suella Benjamin, by confusion with Floella Benjamin
Yup