Commenting on the Home Secretary’s speech to the Conservative party conference, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said:
Amber Rudd delivered a speech that could have been written by John Redwood. The ‘Nasty Party’ hasn’t come back, rather it seems it never went away. This speech is exhibit A on how the Liberal Democrats restrained the Tories. Without us they are showing their true colours: reckless, divisive and uncaring.
All the Conservatives care about is tough rhetoric rather than helping those in need. Amber Rudd can’t defend the indefensible, heartless inaction by the Government on child refugees.
The Home Secretary also made the case quite clearly that the Government cannot be trusted with your personal details, and are still committed to running headlong towards to the so-called Snoopers Charter.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
15 Comments
I would have gone with “could have been written by Peter Lilly” to see if it encourages people to view that conference speech.
I’ve noticed that as it becomes more and more obvious just how much we did protect the country from the Tory right-wing, the Labour left-wing and the Momentum mob double-down and scream ever louder about us being “Tory-light” and “Tory enablers”. That lady doth protest too much.
Part of the reason the country has swung towards nationalism is due to the stagnatory economics that the last Government adopted. The Party needs to move on from the 2010-2015 era and the flawed economic and political strategies pursued. The coalition ended 17 months ago and after electoral massacre. The ongoing management by members of the Guilty Generation to defend their record in coalition and so contining to have the Party defined by the coalition era – rather than letting it start afresh – continues to hold the Party and British Liberalism back
…….Exhibit A on how the Lib Dems restrained the Tories….
Sadly, all we did was to make the Tories look less nasty and more electable…After all, we seemed to agree with most of their major proposals ( NHS reorganisation, Secret Courts, Bedroom tax, Tax Credit cuts, VAT increase, etc.)….
Right on cue.
Theresa May has dubbed Labour “The nasty party”, but does she intend that the Tories would cease to deserve this title? “Tory” was originally a term of abuse and still is in some quarters. Several references to “working class” imply a return to Disraeli, but there have been several widenings of the franchise since then, to achieve our current imperfect democracy. She said nothing about recently registered voters, nor about lowering the voting age to 16, neither of which would cost a lot of money, either or both of which would improve democracy in the UK. She is still facing a potential fall in GDP of 4%, with little idea what to do about it.
Cllr Mark Wright 5th Oct ’16 – 3:26pm………………Right on cue……….
So, are you saying we didn’t agree with them?
Councillor Mark Wright ” I’ve noticed that as it becomes more and more obvious just how much we did protect the country from the Tory right-wing,”
…………. that depends upon the quality of the rose tinted spectacles you wear, Mark.
It’s just as reasonable to say that – to our great discomfort – just like Sir Walter Raleigh – we put our cloak over the puddle to make a clear way for them. Then when they no longer needed us …….. again like Raleigh….. we got our heads chopped off.
I feel like the 5 years the Lib Dems were in Coalition led directly to Brexit because they massively constrained Cameron’s ability to effectively leverage patronage during those 5 years. The Lib Dems took a lot of albeit junior government positions and left a lot of disgruntled Tory MPs
Has it occurred to cuddly Amber that there will be an effect of deporting European national delinquents? EU counties are bound to enact a reciprocal policy leading to the UK importing British delinquents without any control at our border!
Our limited restraint of the Tories (let’s not forget, though, that Lib Dem ministers agreed to the Bedroom Tax an the welfare cap) happened in the background whilst Tories were not challenged up front on the reactionary rhetoric over social security – they were allowed to run away with the argument and so we find ourselves in the position we are in today. A ‘supply and confidence’ agreement would have allowed more freedom to speak out.
Restraining the Tory’s made them electable and we all know were that has gotten us too. If your going to deal with them you need a vary long barge pole and a definite prize to obtain, otherwise all you do is enable them.
We may have restrained the Tories on some issue, but as Andrew Toye, Frankie and Expats have pointed out, we also facilitated many of their more right wing policies, which would not have seen the light of day without Lib Dem coalition support.
With the many problems unfolding within Labour and UKIP we should now be in position to be the natural party of opposition, growing in strength, winning by-elections and regularly on the media explaining the alternative way forward, unfortunately the self inflicted damage we suffered as a result of the coalition years has resulted in it looking like the Tories will now be in a position to attract much of that support.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd was on the Andrew Marr Show on BBc1 on Sunday 17/9/2017. He asked her whether the government will obey the law. She said “I will make sure we do the right thing.”
So, what is the right thing?
Before the Human Rights Act came into force on Sunday 1/10/2000 enforcement of the Human Rights Convention was subject to delays because of long queues in the European Court of Human Rights (which is not an EU court and therefore not affected by the 2016 referendum). Relatives of recognised refugees were entitled to family reunion. The identity of recognised refugees should be kept confidential because their relatives could suffer in the country of origin because of the relationship.
Trainers on asylum courses would routinely ask the new trainees whether an illegal entrant could be granted asylum, (which is not the same question as to whether there should be a change in the law). The correct answer is yes, because the criterion is whether the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution under the 1951 UN convention.
People convicted of immigration offences typically were sentenced to 12 months imprisonment (thereby filling entire prisons at great expense). They could still claim asylum, but very few did, adding to a widespread belief that their asylum claims were not well founded.
Bringing back someone who has been removed in error happens occasionally and is obviously expensive in the individual case with embarrassment added. Deportation orders are not served on ordinary removals because they require explicit approval by a minister or a very senior civil servant. D.O.s are mainly used for convicted criminals. Service of a D. O. means that the deportee cannot return to the UK legally while the DO is in force. Returning illegally would be a breach of the D.O. The word deportation is widely used by the press and media to include ordinary removals. What Andrew Marr said was clearly understood by Amber Rudd in that context.
In the infinite worlds of fantasies anything could happen.
The Liberal Democrats might have refused to form a coalition in 2010, and in an election called a few months later to sort out the lack of a government, the Liberal Democrats led by Nick Clegg could have secured an overall majority to implement a full Liberal Democrat programme.
No one can prove that this would not have happened. Despite the burgeoning deficit Lib Dems might have put the country right with good times for all. People would have been so grateful that despite electoral reform with proportional representation, a Liberal Democrat government would have been re-elected with an increased majority.
I do see the logic for some Lib Dems: ‘if Brexiters can live in a world of fantasy, why can’t we do so too?’