Sunder Katwala

My interview in today's Guardian on identity: patriotism and flags, control and compassion on asylum & racism online and offline

@LordCharles111 @TheNewWorldmag Are you supporting Mr Lowe & Restore Britain to that end?

@TheNewWorldmag @sundersays Sunder can fuck off home as well. We're taking our country back.

The leader of the Restore party promotes immigration policies so extreme, that he’s even further right than the old BNP ✏️ @sundersays thenewworld.co.uk/sunder-katwala…

@englishsportfan I don't assume they want to protect sweeping hostility. Their concern is blasphemy. its a good faith inquiry as to content they think it could unreasonably impede. It is intended to impede toxic speech: "deport all Muslims to make Britain safe from vermin" is lawful but hateful

@englishsportfan I think almost everything they would to say would fit within the guidelines. Certainly blasphemy, comedy. I think they would have a point:some other people may call to curb things the guidelines don't catch. Not sure people trying to stretch it beyond where it goes is a fault

I doubt @SpeechUnion will succeed in court against this non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility, given legit public policy goal + the boundaries on what the guidance seekd to protect. It would be useful to hear what @toadmeister wants to say that he fears will be curbed

@LordWalney As in 2019, when Brokenshire and May made the committment to a consensus definition, I think that it is a controversial contested debate is a good reason to try to have a definition, and to engage on how to use it, rather than a reason to not have one capx.co/how-to-find-co…

@LordWalney The challenge would be: it was prejudical stereotyping: it ascribes an intent (to divide and dominate) that was not the reason for act of prayer by those undertaking it (inconsistently) Its possible to criticise Timothy's call for a ban without saying the definition catches it

I’m not convinced Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square is an act of dominance. Islam is hardly unique in considering itself the one true religion.. But the fact the PM thinks Nick Timothy should be sacked undermines the claim we are all free to criticise Islam despite the new anti-Muslim hostility definition.

@BigThickSlices Please predict the range of seats at least, so we have some understanding of how far apart we are on the politics of this.

@sundersays Oh you are. Absolutely you are.

Why Rupert Lowe has good claim to be most rightwing MP since 1945 - "Millions must go": harder than Enoch Powell (remigration of legal migrants had to be voluntary) - Ethnic minorities not truly British - First party with an MP to set no barrier to Nazis thenewworld.co.uk/sunder-katwala…

@LordWalney You could have a point against people were calling for sanctions based on the definition (+ some may be doing so) but that is based on a further debate about whether or the comments (lawful speech which some perceive as prejudiced) trigger the second part of it - or do not.

@LordWalney Its difficult to see how the definition has changed the nature of speech and counter-speech in this case - unless your hypothesis (unlikely/false) is that Nick Timothy would not have been criticised in this way ifmade these comments prior to the publication of the definition.

@BigThickSlices I am not going anywhere Moley. My prediction of parliamentary seats for Restore Britain is the range of 0-1 seat, as I think Lowe can hold Great Yarmouth, but may lose a 5-way contest too. What is your range of seats? Can we bookmark this chat for August 2029.

@sundersays I think you’re in for a surprise. It has huge appeal to the English. The rest of you, well, you all have somewhere else to go if you’re not happy about it. And you should go.

@Navier_Tokes @MikeTappTweets Real solutions to boats and hotels are an imperative. I would learn from 2021-24 and focus not on what language tests well (but produce chaotic outcomes) but on what policies can work. On settlement, important to get it right. It is less salient except for the directly affected

@sundersays @MikeTappTweets Labour weren't elected to be softer than the Tories on immigration, the Tories lost because they were incompetent, in particular on immigration, Labour's promise was to actually get the things tge British public want done

Not understanding a policy is not justification for attacking it. There is no “row back” on settlement. The period is extending from 5 to 10 years. As has always been the case, and explained consistently, we have just closed a consultation that considers transitional arrangements and potential exemptions. Further decisions are currently being made after the 200k responses are analysed. I am in the Home Office to deliver for the country, these changes are needed given the unmanageable pace and scale of change we have seen, we are preventing 1.6 million having access to the already buckling welfare system, over a short period of time. None of this means we do not value contribution of migrants, quite the opposite. The new system will reward contribution and integration. Polling shows that the changes we are making are popular, because they are necessary. We said we’d put country first before the election, that is what we are doing.

@BigThickSlices It will have a strong appeal to up to 4% of people but I think the openness to overt Nazis, total remigration racists and antisemites will make it impossible for any of his colleagues to get elected.

@sundersays You say that like it’s a bad thing.