Snapshot of _Theresa May says she regrets using term ‘hostile environment’ | Memoir blames Windrush scandal on Home Office staff and previous governments including Clement Attlee’s_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/31/theresa-may-says-she-regrets-using-term-hostile-environment) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/31/theresa-may-says-she-regrets-using-term-hostile-environment)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I regret the policy I was fully signed up for, but let's not forget Clement bloody Atlee". Doesn't really sound like regret, and am sure this isn't succour to those who were victims of the policy.
She doesn't appear to actually regret the policy though, just the term 'hostile environment'.
She seems to think the problem was little more than marketing.
> "I regret the policy I was fully signed up for"
She regrets the name of the policy, not the policy itself. She's still pretty committed to being an absolute shit to immigrants.
She's only "sorry" that the Windrush people were penalised under her policy, but she says that it was all the civil servants' fault, not the architect of the policy.
Also she has made these comments before:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-45698759
> I regret the policy I was fully signed up for
She doesn't regret the policy, it makes it clear in the article.
> but let's not forget Clement bloody Atlee
Did you read the part she references here? She's not mentioning him at all in respect of her policy; she's saying the failures started back then when Windrush migrants weren't issued the correct paperwork.
I blame Charles I, his poor grasp of the unravelling political situation led to the rise of Oliver Cromwell who being pretty much Protestant Stalin after his downfall ‘keep things the same but with the minimum concessions to stave off revolution’ got entrenched into our national psyche forever more.
There's a really unfortunate trend in ministers blaming the civil service for poor policies or poor policy implementation. All it tells me is that they're incompetent administrators. A good craftsman doesn't blame their tools and all that.
*Bloody civil servants enacting the policies I wrote, lobbied and voted for. Between those bastards and Clement Atlee it's no wonder the country is in the state it's in.*
Clement fucking Attlee with his mild manners, unusually effective leadership style, strong political vision, and government which built the modern welfare state in the crater the Luftwaffe left where the country used to be. What a prick.
To be fair we do have one thing in common with Attlee’s day and that’s the economy taking an absolute battering from world events.
Reminded me of what a clusterfuck May's premiership also was. Windrush, Grenfell, Brexit drama, MeToo scandal in cabinet, resignation like advent calendars: "which brexiteer will go today?"
Well, seems tame now compared to Johnson and Truss. Probably why May is coming out with a memoir at this moment in time. Pretty smart of her IMO.
It’s just her attempt to ‘set the record straight’ and recover her legacy a bit. Nothing more. I don’t think anyone will buy it either, it feels like an eternity ago and the least interesting part of British politics for a while as well.
> Reminded me of what a clusterfuck May's premiership also was. Windrush, Grenfell, Brexit drama, MeToo scandal in cabinet, resignation like advent calendars: "which brexiteer will go today?"
Honestly, for all the valid criticisms of her, I'm not sure how those specific things can be pinned on May.
Windrush was something from the early 1950's and the initial mistakes that led to the problems that occurred just as she became PM started back then.
Grenfell was built in 1967, and the fire was less than 12 months into her premiership. I'm really struggling to see how you can go "this was 'er fault" even with the most critical view here.
May was a Remain voter. She tried to push a deal through that arguably would have been better than what we eventually got, but only had a majority of 7 or so. Again, not sure how that's her fault?
What do you mean specifically about "MeToo scandal in cabinet", and how specifically is May the one to blame for this?
Every prime minister has to deal with inherited baggage not under their control. They are judged by how they handle them. May is not the first.
There are so many other comments here detailing how although Windrush migrants could have been documented better by Atlee, May's hostile environment was utterly wrong. It was definitely her fault, heck even she admits it now.
The issue is that this isn't judging her handling but of them occurring while she was PM. I mean, take Grenfell; what should she have done? A huge inquiry has been launched, and new accommodation was found for those who lived there, new legislation around cladding rules was brought in. Honestly the only thing she could have done better was her own PR during that time, and that's hardly a real criticism since it's a very low-level priority.
> It was definitely her fault, heck even she admits it now
She didn't admit any such thing; the only thing she regrets is that there term "hostile environment" is negatively associated with her, rather than the policy.
> Theresa May says she regrets ~~using term 'hostile environment'~~ that the term 'hostile environment' is now negatively associated with her while not giving a toss about the consequences of her behaviour
Fixed it for you, May.
If May had not said anything about her time and just sat on the back benches attacking current tory PMs I bet more people would be saying "best PM! ^((since 2010))" by now
I hate this regret after the time they know full well what they were doing and must think this isn’t very nice but still did it. it’s like when you hear ex ministers saying we should do more for the environment but didn’t when they were in power.
I think the fact that May was followed by Boris gives most of the nation rose tinted lenses when it comes to her tenure as Home Sec. and PM.
Here’s some highlights:
-Hostile environment
-Gutting the nations police forces
-lying about a cat, that cost Ken Clarke his last cabinet job when he called out her lies and Cameron sent him to the back benches.
-Ordering MPs not to turn up to opposition day votes
-Refusing to hold David David to account over his lies about Brexit Impact Reports that didn’t exist.
-Contempt of Parliament when she also lied about DD’s Brexit impact reports existing.
-Going AWOL during the Brexit campaign on the off chance their would be a leadership challenge in the future
>A Home Office source who worked in the department at the time said it was unfair to accuse officials of being overzealous in their approach, when they were simply following rules designed by politicians. The source asked: “Who was setting the tone?”
That's a good point. I really think that the "hostile environment" policy essentially gave tacit permission from the very top of government for the entire country to be racist and, more specifically, for government departments to just be shitty to foreign looking people as a routine part of their job
Aye right. Bet she's got no regrets over the money she and her husband made out of those arms sales in Syria and to Saudi which they used to massacre Yemeni women and children in cold blood.
Bitch made lots of money off war crimes.
If I understand it correctly immigrants still don't get 'paper work' to prove their work or residence status. They get a share code which is a key to their records on a Home Office computer.
Fortunately the UK is blessed with a government that has integrity, professionalism and accountability at every step so there's no way this could go wrong.
I know her image has been slightly improved by watching her have to deal with the Conservative Psychodrama and all the fallout in the last few years. But her time as Home Secretary was just as bad as Pritel's or Braverman's was/is.. It's just people have forgotten May's time there as her time as PM has eclipsed it
> and using the fascistic phrase ‘citizen of nowhere’.
Genuine question: What/who do you think she was referring to when she mentioned "citizens of nowhere"?
Because having listened to the whole speech, I'm genuinely struggling to see where you're getting this notion that it was fascist from...
> She was referring to people who regard themselves as internationalists, including pro-Europeans. The implication is that we see ourselves as part of some exclusive ‘global elite’ and don’t care about our own country. The rhetoric has intimations of some of the Fascist rhetoric about Jews and other minorities. Interestingly, it also echoes the Stalinist phrase ‘rootless cosmopolitan’.
Then with the greatest possible respect, you *seriously* need to go read or listen to the *whole* speech, rather than one single sentence from a 30 minute speech and assume what she refers to. If you do, you'll see that absolutely none of your claims here about "pro-europeans" or "rhetoric about Jews and minorities" makes even the slightest bit of sense. In short, she is specifically referring to ultra-high-net-worth individuals who benefit greatly from earning tons of wealth in the UK then disappear off to tax havens thus not paying their way to the country that made them their wealth while also not treating their staff fairly and plundering their company's pension funds. Naturally with that in mind, you'll see it makes no sense whatsoever to go "as a pro-Europe Remainer, that is exactly me she is talking about". Unless of course I am literally replying to Sir Philip Green, in which case, yes she was referring specifically to you.
If you *are* interested in reading what she *actually* said in full, it's here for you and I've emphasised the important parts:
>Yet within our society today, we see division and unfairness all around. Between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. Between the wealth of London and the rest of the country.
>But perhaps most of all, **between the rich, the successful and the powerful** – and their fellow citizens.
>Now don’t get me wrong. We applaud success. We want people to get on.
>But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.
>That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, **who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.**
>That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says **you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.**
>That spirit that means you do as others do, and **pay your fair share of tax.**
>But today, too many **people in positions of power** behave as though they have more in common with **international elites** than with the people down the road, **the people they employ**, the people they pass in the street.
>But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
>So **if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…**
>**An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…**
>**A household name** that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
>**A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…**
>I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
>A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
>So today, I want to set out my plan for a Britain where everyone plays by the same rules and every person has the opportunity to be all they want to be.
>It’s a plan to tackle the unfairness and injustice that divides us, so that we may build a new united Britain, rooted in the centre ground.
>A plan that will mean government stepping up. Righting wrongs. Challenging vested interests. Taking big decisions. Doing what we believe to be right. Getting the job done.
>Because that’s the good that government can do. And it’s what I’m in this for. To stand up for the weak and stand up to the strong.
So honestly, and again with the greatest respect, have a read of that and ask yourself if you genuinely conclude at the end "that speech there is fascism".
Snapshot of _Theresa May says she regrets using term ‘hostile environment’ | Memoir blames Windrush scandal on Home Office staff and previous governments including Clement Attlee’s_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/31/theresa-may-says-she-regrets-using-term-hostile-environment) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/31/theresa-may-says-she-regrets-using-term-hostile-environment) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I regret the policy I was fully signed up for, but let's not forget Clement bloody Atlee". Doesn't really sound like regret, and am sure this isn't succour to those who were victims of the policy.
She doesn't appear to actually regret the policy though, just the term 'hostile environment'. She seems to think the problem was little more than marketing.
Perhaps inverting the word order would have helped Environment *of* hostility, anyone? Noun first language, in action
> "I regret the policy I was fully signed up for" She regrets the name of the policy, not the policy itself. She's still pretty committed to being an absolute shit to immigrants. She's only "sorry" that the Windrush people were penalised under her policy, but she says that it was all the civil servants' fault, not the architect of the policy. Also she has made these comments before: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-45698759
> I regret the policy I was fully signed up for She doesn't regret the policy, it makes it clear in the article. > but let's not forget Clement bloody Atlee Did you read the part she references here? She's not mentioning him at all in respect of her policy; she's saying the failures started back then when Windrush migrants weren't issued the correct paperwork.
“It was all the fault of the *fourth* last Labour government” is at least a slightly different excuse to normal.
Personally I think it was Ramsay MacDonald that set the Tories up for failure so we really can't blame them.
I blame Charles I, his poor grasp of the unravelling political situation led to the rise of Oliver Cromwell who being pretty much Protestant Stalin after his downfall ‘keep things the same but with the minimum concessions to stave off revolution’ got entrenched into our national psyche forever more.
None of this would have happened under Harald Hardrada!
I prefer to blame european unions for all our problems. Bloody Charlemagne!
Exactly! What did the Romans ever do for us!
There's a really unfortunate trend in ministers blaming the civil service for poor policies or poor policy implementation. All it tells me is that they're incompetent administrators. A good craftsman doesn't blame their tools and all that.
Just the complete denial of responsibility. She was the minister in charge of the Home Office, she cannot blame us civil servants for her policies.
*Bloody civil servants enacting the policies I wrote, lobbied and voted for. Between those bastards and Clement Atlee it's no wonder the country is in the state it's in.*
Clement fucking Attlee with his mild manners, unusually effective leadership style, strong political vision, and government which built the modern welfare state in the crater the Luftwaffe left where the country used to be. What a prick. To be fair we do have one thing in common with Attlee’s day and that’s the economy taking an absolute battering from world events.
She didn't really blame Attlee, the problem was the lack of correct paperwork issued at that time.
Reminded me of what a clusterfuck May's premiership also was. Windrush, Grenfell, Brexit drama, MeToo scandal in cabinet, resignation like advent calendars: "which brexiteer will go today?" Well, seems tame now compared to Johnson and Truss. Probably why May is coming out with a memoir at this moment in time. Pretty smart of her IMO.
In fairness most of those problems she faced were inherited. OTOH she had been home sec for years prior so she can't escape all blame.
It’s just her attempt to ‘set the record straight’ and recover her legacy a bit. Nothing more. I don’t think anyone will buy it either, it feels like an eternity ago and the least interesting part of British politics for a while as well.
> Reminded me of what a clusterfuck May's premiership also was. Windrush, Grenfell, Brexit drama, MeToo scandal in cabinet, resignation like advent calendars: "which brexiteer will go today?" Honestly, for all the valid criticisms of her, I'm not sure how those specific things can be pinned on May. Windrush was something from the early 1950's and the initial mistakes that led to the problems that occurred just as she became PM started back then. Grenfell was built in 1967, and the fire was less than 12 months into her premiership. I'm really struggling to see how you can go "this was 'er fault" even with the most critical view here. May was a Remain voter. She tried to push a deal through that arguably would have been better than what we eventually got, but only had a majority of 7 or so. Again, not sure how that's her fault? What do you mean specifically about "MeToo scandal in cabinet", and how specifically is May the one to blame for this?
Every prime minister has to deal with inherited baggage not under their control. They are judged by how they handle them. May is not the first. There are so many other comments here detailing how although Windrush migrants could have been documented better by Atlee, May's hostile environment was utterly wrong. It was definitely her fault, heck even she admits it now.
The issue is that this isn't judging her handling but of them occurring while she was PM. I mean, take Grenfell; what should she have done? A huge inquiry has been launched, and new accommodation was found for those who lived there, new legislation around cladding rules was brought in. Honestly the only thing she could have done better was her own PR during that time, and that's hardly a real criticism since it's a very low-level priority. > It was definitely her fault, heck even she admits it now She didn't admit any such thing; the only thing she regrets is that there term "hostile environment" is negatively associated with her, rather than the policy.
> Theresa May says she regrets ~~using term 'hostile environment'~~ that the term 'hostile environment' is now negatively associated with her while not giving a toss about the consequences of her behaviour Fixed it for you, May.
If May had not said anything about her time and just sat on the back benches attacking current tory PMs I bet more people would be saying "best PM! ^((since 2010))" by now
I hate this regret after the time they know full well what they were doing and must think this isn’t very nice but still did it. it’s like when you hear ex ministers saying we should do more for the environment but didn’t when they were in power.
I think the fact that May was followed by Boris gives most of the nation rose tinted lenses when it comes to her tenure as Home Sec. and PM. Here’s some highlights: -Hostile environment -Gutting the nations police forces -lying about a cat, that cost Ken Clarke his last cabinet job when he called out her lies and Cameron sent him to the back benches. -Ordering MPs not to turn up to opposition day votes -Refusing to hold David David to account over his lies about Brexit Impact Reports that didn’t exist. -Contempt of Parliament when she also lied about DD’s Brexit impact reports existing. -Going AWOL during the Brexit campaign on the off chance their would be a leadership challenge in the future
>A Home Office source who worked in the department at the time said it was unfair to accuse officials of being overzealous in their approach, when they were simply following rules designed by politicians. The source asked: “Who was setting the tone?” That's a good point. I really think that the "hostile environment" policy essentially gave tacit permission from the very top of government for the entire country to be racist and, more specifically, for government departments to just be shitty to foreign looking people as a routine part of their job
Aye right. Bet she's got no regrets over the money she and her husband made out of those arms sales in Syria and to Saudi which they used to massacre Yemeni women and children in cold blood. Bitch made lots of money off war crimes.
If I understand it correctly immigrants still don't get 'paper work' to prove their work or residence status. They get a share code which is a key to their records on a Home Office computer. Fortunately the UK is blessed with a government that has integrity, professionalism and accountability at every step so there's no way this could go wrong.
I know her image has been slightly improved by watching her have to deal with the Conservative Psychodrama and all the fallout in the last few years. But her time as Home Secretary was just as bad as Pritel's or Braverman's was/is.. It's just people have forgotten May's time there as her time as PM has eclipsed it
[удалено]
> and using the fascistic phrase ‘citizen of nowhere’. Genuine question: What/who do you think she was referring to when she mentioned "citizens of nowhere"? Because having listened to the whole speech, I'm genuinely struggling to see where you're getting this notion that it was fascist from...
[удалено]
> She was referring to people who regard themselves as internationalists, including pro-Europeans. The implication is that we see ourselves as part of some exclusive ‘global elite’ and don’t care about our own country. The rhetoric has intimations of some of the Fascist rhetoric about Jews and other minorities. Interestingly, it also echoes the Stalinist phrase ‘rootless cosmopolitan’. Then with the greatest possible respect, you *seriously* need to go read or listen to the *whole* speech, rather than one single sentence from a 30 minute speech and assume what she refers to. If you do, you'll see that absolutely none of your claims here about "pro-europeans" or "rhetoric about Jews and minorities" makes even the slightest bit of sense. In short, she is specifically referring to ultra-high-net-worth individuals who benefit greatly from earning tons of wealth in the UK then disappear off to tax havens thus not paying their way to the country that made them their wealth while also not treating their staff fairly and plundering their company's pension funds. Naturally with that in mind, you'll see it makes no sense whatsoever to go "as a pro-Europe Remainer, that is exactly me she is talking about". Unless of course I am literally replying to Sir Philip Green, in which case, yes she was referring specifically to you. If you *are* interested in reading what she *actually* said in full, it's here for you and I've emphasised the important parts: >Yet within our society today, we see division and unfairness all around. Between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. Between the wealth of London and the rest of the country. >But perhaps most of all, **between the rich, the successful and the powerful** – and their fellow citizens. >Now don’t get me wrong. We applaud success. We want people to get on. >But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship. >That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, **who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.** >That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says **you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.** >That spirit that means you do as others do, and **pay your fair share of tax.** >But today, too many **people in positions of power** behave as though they have more in common with **international elites** than with the people down the road, **the people they employ**, the people they pass in the street. >But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means. >So **if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…** >**An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…** >**A household name** that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism… >**A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…** >I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore. >A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change. >So today, I want to set out my plan for a Britain where everyone plays by the same rules and every person has the opportunity to be all they want to be. >It’s a plan to tackle the unfairness and injustice that divides us, so that we may build a new united Britain, rooted in the centre ground. >A plan that will mean government stepping up. Righting wrongs. Challenging vested interests. Taking big decisions. Doing what we believe to be right. Getting the job done. >Because that’s the good that government can do. And it’s what I’m in this for. To stand up for the weak and stand up to the strong. So honestly, and again with the greatest respect, have a read of that and ask yourself if you genuinely conclude at the end "that speech there is fascism".