Some one has been shuffling the labour party’s hymn sheets – obviously a Tory dirty trick.

Far more seriously, an obviously “unrepresentative minority” of BNP sympathisers have been flooding the blogs , at least those libertarian and right-wing blogs,( that believe in freedom of speech),with sexed-up versions of Woolas’ arguments, using them to embroider and legitimise their own racist policies. As the penny drops, the Woolas/ BNP connection could well be the final nail in NuLabs’ coffin. I shed not a tear for Labour, but I am worried about the demise of an( in theory) democratic political party in favour of the rise of a (definitely) undemocratic one.

It certainly is odd, this issue is such an obvious no brainer; they could just said yes let them in and moved on with a populist bit of positive news coverage.

Perhaps No10 is so entrenched in a bunker mentality it’s no longer functioning according to rational rules of political calculation?

Even the most rabidly right-wing anti-immigration nutjobs in the country tend to make an exception for the Gurkhas so christ knows what the government were thinking.

Sure, some Labour members and supporters were backing the Gurkhas but it was a Labour government trying to keep them out. It’s not bloogers and the Tories they should be bashing it is their own government.

And as well as not bashing the bloogers they should lay off the bloggers too.

” I’ve been mystified why this government refused to give in to what was so obviously the right moral and political stance..”

Surely, Sunny, the Ghurkas affair is just one more a long list of similar mystifications offered by the currrent Government? More glaring than usual on the political side perhaps; but about normal for spin in the moral compass?

The unusual thing is to see all the Tories, not just David Davis and Co., on the morally right side.

I’ve been mystified why this government…

…on so very many issues. This is a glaring one, but could be a tipping-point for those who aren’t already sick to the back teeth of the New lab entryists, and those who put party ahead of such trivial concerns as the rule of law, morality, sense, value-for-money, justice

Brown has no respect for the armed forces. The 100th anniversary of the TA in Scotland was attended by A Salmond but not Brown . What a no brainer when Labour are competing with the SNP and so many Scots have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hardly any Labour MP has served in the Armed Forces and so noone could brief Brown on the respect with which the Gurkas are held. Brown is just out of touch with most of the UK and Labour have a few weeks to replace him .

#8 is rubbish; I’ve had plenty of doorstep conversations with service people who will vote Labour next time because of improvements for the armed forces inc tripled loyalty bonuses, free tuition on return, year-round freepost, compensation payments doubled, council tax relief etc

Sunny is in the main correct here. There was a clear failure to understand public opinion. But on a moral level the decision is understandable (not excusable) when you consider that government has deported asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, to DRC, to Somalia, to Sudan, etc; when you consider that it has ignored physical abuse in immigration detention centres and in transit; when you consider that crap (even dangerous) housing with poor living conditions and poverty pay is imposed on asylum seekers in an attempt to deter people from coming here. These tools – deemed necessary if you’re going to get the numbers of migrants down whatever the human costs in order to appease public opinion – are a lot more immoral than refusing Ghurkas rights to settle here. So in the grand game of keeping the numbers down, I can totally understand the decision because it is one in a long line of decisions taken to appease racist currents rather than challenge them. It’s just in this case there was a failure to understand the political mood.

However there have been plenty of backbench Labour MPs who have been pushing the Ghurkas’ cause for years, just as there have Lib Dems. In 2004 Labour allowed some Ghurkas to settle – much better than the Tories who consistently refused to allow any to settle when in power. Those Tories in office before 1997 who voted the right way on this were clearly doing so just to defeat the government. Don’t get me wrong – I’m glad they voted the right way for whatever reason, just I’m not going to praise them when their motives were likely cynical.

why this government refused to give in to what was so obviously the right moral and political stance to take

I wonder if they’ve ever taken such a stance. Would be odd to expect them to do it now, when they are in their death throes.

And come on, perhaps Labour members could enlighten the rest of us as to what pressure they have been able to exert on their leadership and the government in 12 years? If they whine that power has been centralised to the top, then what have they tried to do about it? If they have tried anything, then clearly it isn’t working. If their argument is that nothing can be done, then why remain members?

In a thread many moons ago, I suggested that this government acted illiberally (wrt National ID etc) because it didn’t understand liberalism. To that criticism, I will add that this government has lost its moral backbone.

In 1997, we were promised “an ethical foreign policy”, and liberals would expect that ethical policy to extend to “foreigners” like the Gurkhas. “Ethical foreign policy” died when Robin Cook was removed from office as Foreign Secretary in 2001, but you’d still expect a core of morality in government decision making. Alas, ethical/moral anything appears to have been removed from government at the same time as Robin Cook. Spending on education and health is not a moral issue, because it is expedient on any government to fund them, and the argument is how much. Acknowledging the service of Gurkhas is definitely a moral issue, because the honourable act is to give them residence and fair pensions.

Charlieman, I’m not sure how you got from all governments have to fund education and health to some extent to the question of whether to fund them generously or starve them is not a moral question. There seem to be a few stages removed from your reasoning.

9 tim f. Rubbish . Please demonstrate how Brown has a respect for and a knowledge of for the Armed Forces .

Well I listed a few of the things Labour have done while he’s been leader. As you didn’t read what I wrote, I can’t really be bothered to list other things too.

“These tools – deemed necessary if you’re going to get the numbers of migrants down whatever the human costs in order to appease public opinion – are a lot more immoral than refusing Ghurkas rights to settle here”

The Gurkhas have served in Britain’s armed forces. In many cases they have shed blood for us. Frankly I think that puts them head of the queue.

Ahead of someone who may be tortured if they are returned to their original country? (I’m not saying don’t let them in)

The biggest thing I fail to understand is why the Home Office seems to have been the fall-guy. The bigger issue, and one that the government keeps repeating, is the “cost” of letting them all in. That cost would not be a Home Office cost surely, so much as an MoD one – unless because they have such poor and discriminatory pensions and if the MoD did not budge on that – then they would become an immigration welfare cost.

But the MoD needs to move anyway on treating them right, whether they settle here, at home or anywhere else. It seems to me that the battle for settlement rights is just the beginning, and it doesn’t matter which government it is, they have been fundamentally mistreated since 1947 by all governments.

I am completely mystified why anyone credits Martin Salter with support for the Gurkha cause.

He abstained from the vote despite chairing of the parliamentary group set up on their behalf.

His position is now untenable and there are calls from all sides for him to step aside.

The man has a long history of saying one thing and then doing another – it is clear and dishonest electioneering on his part. It should not be overlooked that Salter is one of the key figures ‘masterminding’ Labour election strategy.

Why journalists like Nick Robinson or bloggers like Sunny continue to swallow the lie that he is a rebel only exposes their ignorance of the man and the way Labour works.

What Oranjepan says above is pretty well damning for the Labour Party as well as the Government. I’ve said before that I could vote for a party led by someone like Sunder Katawala, who seems, to me at least, to be an honourable man. Unfortunately he seems also to be part of a tiny minority within the ranks of our main left wing party.

We really need a sense of moral direction on the liberal left and we are certainly not getting it from a Party that is exercised more about power than it is about politics.

I would seriously suggest that this site ought to back the Liberal Party until such times as the Labour Party comes back to it’s senses. Meanwhile, I’ll keep voting SNP.

Well, I’d obviously back the above comment. The rabid response that Sunny recieved from Labour members after repeating a Lib Dem tweet underlines that it’s become more a question of an us-and-them mentality in Labour circles than any question of providing moral and legislative direction for the future… except that the same applies to the SNP, and Salmond has made some hugely questionable and populist blunders to pander to an anti-Labour vote.

The real question is whether the liberal left can either a) as Labour members have any hope of convincing the New Labour cadre to stand down at the autumn conference, which I find highly, HIGHLY unlikely, or b) accept that it is Lib Dems that can finally offer effective opposition to the next Conservative government and move to back them in their areas, either in hope of “waking Labour up” or in stopping the slide of illiberal and wilfully damaging legislation that has followed many years of good service and accomplishments, and threatens to be permanently derailed by a Tory government promising more of the same.

When watching the debate it was clear to me that some Labour back benchers were extremely passionate and with the Lib Dem’s and Tories on this…but like Sunny says, where was their public show of this outside the commons? It seems to me that Labour are still unaware or unaccepting of their own demise. They are in agreement with all opposition on Gurkhas yet refused to take the next step in joining them publicly to condemn the government’s actions. This kind of follows on nicely from Laurie’s article yesterday.

Robson,

Off topic, I know, but just to reply to you.

Despite being a member, I’m a bit ambivalent about the SNP. However, on the major issues they tick all the right boxes for me. Having lived my entire life on the basis that I would never join a club that would have me, I overcame that and signed up.

So, my membership is a bit provisional, really.

My basic arguement is that the SNP manifesto contains a lot of left wing policies that I’d like to see implemented, and that within a UK context all I can foresee is them being damned to oblivion. Y’know nuclear weapons, immigration, stuff like that. So, my idea, for what it’s worth, is that I’ll vote SNP until independence and then revert to voting Liberal.

This is known as tactical voting.

Can anyone move beyond the emotional case for giving them residency and spouting clichés. Its hypocritical behaviour when you slate the tabloid Media for behaving in the same manner. Is it your argument that working for a foreign country on a predetermined contract should retrospectively entitle you to residency in that country on the basis that it was dangerous work or would you apply that to any work? Does contract law recognise the difference between dangerous and safe work? What would stop any of the thousands of Iraqis, Afghanistanis and others that have previously worked for a UK agency abroad, subsequently claiming residency rights?

Obviously, some of you want a World without borders and others want to destroy British identity and culture through immigration, so the questions are for the more reasoned readers. Thanks.

chavscum @ 24,

No.

No shame whatsoever.

If you check out their policies, absent independence, they probably reflect more about what this site claims to be than any other political party. It ain’t the BNP-lite or summat.

chavscum @ 25,

You’d probably claim it is an emotional case – what exactly is wrong with that btw – but putting your life on the line for this great country of ours (sarcasm alert) seems to me to carry obligations somewhat beyond normal employment law. But, there you go, the French can do it for the Foreign Legionnaires, within three years of enlistment or quicker if you are wounded. They call it “Français par le sang versé” (”French by spilled blood”), which has an attractive ring to it….

And I, for one, would have allowed the Iraq interpreters in too.

“Does contract law recognise the difference between dangerous and safe work? What would stop any of the thousands of Iraqis, Afghanistanis and others that have previously worked for a UK agency abroad, subsequently claiming residency rights?”

You’re introducing arguments that aren’t relevant. The Gurkha issue is regarding one main issue and that is that the courts ruled that the government needed to make provision for these people and they failed to make an adequate provision.

Douglas,

Again off-topic, but there is no shame in tactically voting SNP to prevent Labour domination, particularly as the Liberal coalition in Scotland had served its course. I am sorry if I implied otherwise!

I’m simply unsure that a party that swings wildly into corporatism when it feels like it, or the recent candidate selection of an apologist for radical Islamist groups such as those that attacked Glasgow airport and Hizb-ut-Tahrir who were active at my university until November <a href=(unconvincing rebuttal here), can be really said to have moral authority among the liberal left.

I completely messed up the code for the links on that last post, I do apologise. But the three distinct posts are in there.

The real issue should immediately remain whether this vote has “dragged Labour’s name through the mud” as Sunny put it. I maintain that in the eyes of the outside world, yes, it has, but that Labour activists are not done fighting their corner yet, and will do their best to ignore it.

tim f @13: “Charlieman, I’m not sure how you got from all governments have to fund education and health to some extent to the question of whether to fund them generously or starve them is not a moral question.”

That’s because it isn’t what I wrote. I deliberately stated: “Spending on education and health is not a moral issue, because it is expedient on any government to fund them, and the argument is how much.”

Robson,

No worries. I have yet to address the whole question of Osama Saeeds’ candidacy for Glasgow Central, y’know, to my own satisfaction. However, what is pretty clear is that his main opponent, Anas Sarwar owes his candidacy to nepotism. (His father is the incumbent MP). Last year I railed against the potential Clinton / Bush duopoly of the Presidency, so I am not exactly a happy bunny to see it closer to hand. Notwithstanding that, neither am I happy to read this, which even if you remove the slurs, ought to be answered:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/04/25/quilliam-offends-the-snp/#comments

I am a tad surprised, to say the least, that he didn’t comment on it.

On what grounds did the court rule the Govt should make provisions for them? What logic did they follow? I’d be grateful if someone could explain the logic and whether there are implications for the future, without resorting to clichés. Cheers.

#26 What sort of record do national socialists have when they gain power?

chavscum: If you’re a foreign soldier in the British Army, then you are allowed to settle in Britain after just 4 years service, regardless of any other factor, indeed Indian soldiers that fought in the second world war were given this same right (if the debate in the house on this was to be correct). Gurkhas that retire after 1997 and have served 4 years get the same rights. Those that retired before 1997 don’t. It’s pure and simple inequality and discrimination based on nothing more than a singular logisitical event.

I talked to Martin Salter and he said he was passionate about two issues – the Gurkhas and opposing the Third Runway. Hence I mentioned him. I don’t know why he abstained though – but given he’s not standing next year I don’t really expect him to have abstained in order to climb the greasy pole…

Lee. Are you sure about that? I’ve read that 2.5m Indian soldiers served under the British Army during WW2. When you say retire do you mean retire from the army? If a Ghurka does a 10yr stint, aged 20, and then retires aged 65, are you saying that 35yrs after leaving the British Army they are entitled to come and live in the UK?

There is so much emotional nonsense about this Ghurka issue, I’m struggling to find facts. Anyone able to point to an unbiased source?

chavscum @35:

http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapter29/

Sunny,
Talking to Martin Salter is not relevant as he will tell you what he thinks you want to hear. He is typical of Labour in that he simply cannot be trusted. Anybody who relies on such an unreliable man deserves all they get.

Actions speak louder than words – what Salter says is hardly ever what Salter does.

To this day he will tell anyone who listens that he opposed the invasion of Iraq, but that’s not borne out by his voting record.

I described his ‘opposition’ to the governments plans for a third runway at Heathrow at the time as “pandering to popular sentiment in a strategic constituency for his party” and nothing could be more true in a general sense. Immigration, animal rights, gay rights, drugs, pornography, expenses – take your pick it’s all grist to his ability to pile up votes. In fact you’d be hard-pressed to discover what lines he wouldn’t cross.

I’ve been unlucky enough to have him as my local MP and there are umpteen examples of him lying, bullying and worse, as I have experienced first hand and has been documented by numerous sources. I was a fool to help him into office in 97 (the campaign was my first experience of politics up close) but I soon learnt about the beast that had been created.

Salter’s abstention on the Gurkhas is perfectly in line with his ploy of making a big show of ideals but habitually choosing expediency. It makes him look like the voice of reason, but it is entirely cynical.

Until RBC changed to NOC he ruled the council like it was his personal fiefdom, with personal ‘friends’ in all the strategic offices from chief executive down to the ground. He is in politics for himself and has a strategic job within the party based on his ability to con voters into giving their support. And as your response shows he is anybody’s poodle.

Salter claims he is a reason why Labour is successful (or the reason locally), but in my view he is a prime example of what is wrong with the party and why any success they have is not necessarily in the public interest and will only ever be temporary – at least for that we can be hopeful.

“Screw you. I’m Lab supporting the Gurkhas. But fed up with Tory lies – how many Gs did they home? 0!”

Worth pointing out that pre-97 the Gurkha regiments were based in Hong Kong, and that Gurkhas were awarded Hong Kong citizenship. This had been the case since, I believe, WW2 – and there were certainly a lot of Gurkhas in HK when I was there. Rather obviously that solution ended in 97, and the question for Labour to answer was what to do next. Blaming the Tories doesn’t get us very far on this.

On a wider point, how politically dense to you have to be not to realise that Gurkhas+Joanna Lumley > Phil Woolas+Gordon Brown?

The fuckwits who like to comment on Evening Standard/Daily Mail/BBC articles or “opinion forums” are already clamouring for Lumley to be crowned PM.

Surallan for London Mayor.
Lumley for PM.

Perhaps all aspiring politicians should book themselves in for a course at RADA, as opposed to learning how to help real people with real problems? Bit of acting and TV celebrity will do the trick!

@ Rayyan

Bit of acting and TV celebrity will do the trick!

Worked for that dissimulator Blair.

Martin Salter was so “strongly for the Ghurkas” that he abstained: “It is the amount of abstainers that did it. Comparatively few Labour MPs actually voted for the Lib Dem motion but an awful lot of people sat on their hands as a way of showing their determination to finish this issue.”

So determined to finish the issue they “sat on their hands”. I hope the Ghurkas are grateful.

That Tony Blair decided to go into politics rather than acting was a loss to both professions.

“Ahead of someone who may be tortured if they are returned to their original country? (I’m not saying don’t let them in)”

That depends whether they passd through any safe countries to get here.