Defenders of Priti Patel's unpleasant behaviour, has it made her a better Home Secretary? Would a less disagreeable Home Secretary have been worse at the job?
And who is it now who makes it all about race and sex? Do you just expect less of a brown woman than you would of a white man? It is impossible to see any other logic to your argument. But then, you are also the original, and still the biggest, snowflakes, as well as having been the pioneers of cancel culture. Having dished it out by the bucket load forever, you cannot now take even a thimbleful of it back.
One of your favourite foghorn signals is that there used to be a taboo around the discussion of what you mean when you say "immigration", a taboo that must have been in effect while the rest of us were in a coma. Built into this is the insistence that your own view on the subject is widely held, that it was decisive of the EU referendum, and that it was therefore also decisive of the 2019 General Election.
None of that is remotely true, but what if it were? Would that be a reason to cheer for Patel? She wants to give the absolute right to live and work in this country to three million Cantonese, and visa-free access to 1.353 billion Indians, there being no other reason to formalise a free trade agreement with a country with which we already did a roaring trade without one. That does put a few dinghies into a certain amount of perspective.
Richard Holden has rushed to Patel's defence, for which he is going to have to account at the next General Election. Why does he consider her behaviour acceptable? Why has he played the race and sex cards on her behalf? Why does he want to give the absolute right to live and work in this country to three million Cantonese? And why does he want to give visa-free access to 1.353 billion Indians? I am an Independent candidate for the parliamentary seat of North West Durham.
Post a Comment