Derek Ward
LightNews LightNews
banner
dward-bham.bsky.social
Derek Ward
@dward-bham.bsky.social
310 followers 230 following 16 posts
Professor of Public Health and Medical Education at the University of Birmingham, UK. Interested in public health, medical education and HTA. Atheist/humanist. He/Him.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Derek Ward
tanjabueltmann.net
‘Ask one simple question: How do Home Sec’s proposals improve lives of constituents? 

The answer is: they do not improve them. There will be no new money and there is nothing that will help address real problems in communities because they simply do not stem from people seeking sanctuary with us.‘
the UK. This is the consequence of a radicalisation that is happening in real time, enabled by parts of our media, by too many politicians, and by a far-right misinformation platform—X—that many continue to use as though it still represents a normal means of communication. It does not. Anyone staying is choosing to immerse in bot-driven racism and algorithmically amplified outrage. I urge not using X as a guide to views (and to leave it).  I suggest that a much better way of thinking about the proposals is to ask just one v simple question: How do the Home Sec’s proposals improve the lives of constituents?  The answer is: they do not improve them. There will be no new money and there is nothing that will help address real problems in communities because they simply do not stem from people seeking sanctuary with us. They do not stem from any immigrant for that matter. Our real problems lie in the failure of this Govt to address the cost-of-living crisis and in the mainstreaming of far-right policies—combined, these deliver a sure-fire path to much worse. So while scapegoating immigrants and refugees is easy—that is why it has always been the response populists use to hide their failures—it will not do a single positive thing for constituents. In fact, anti-immigration policies often constitute a double negative: they prevent addressing the real issues by providing wrong focus and they likely make the real issues worse because the UK actually needs immigrants. These are the facts we do not talk about because the main political parties have, for over a decade, let extremists define the agenda—and their immigration policies.  That the new target are people seeking sanctuary demonstrates how much the escalating extremism in British politics this triggered has already achieved. That it is a ‘Labour’ government that is choosing not only to directly enable more of this, but to set us on a path that brings real risks for all of us—you tell me what you make of that. But
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM
Reposted by Derek Ward
tanjabueltmann.net
‘Once one accepts that human rights can be qualified for one group, one creates tools that can be used against anyone. 

So when the Home Sec warns left-wing Labour MPs, ‘if you don’t like this, you won’t like what follows me,’ recognise that for the threat that it is […] to all of us.’
we urgently need politicians to break this cycle. That begins with opposing policies like those set out in the current proposals. What is really at stake Because what these proposals really mean goes far beyond asylum policy and refugees. This is about the kind of country we are choosing to become and enable. Whether we will stand firm on the principle that human rights are universal, or whether we will accept that they can be qualified, compromised, and stripped away when deemed politically convenient. Any changes to how the European Convention on Human Rights is applied are a particular concern. The idea to require judges to prioritise ‘public safety’—again a false implication that refugees pose a threat—would qualify human rights for a specific group of people. The problem is: once one accepts that human rights can be qualified for one group, one creates tools that can be used against anyone.  So when the Home Secretary warns left-wing Labour MPs, ‘if you don’t like this, you won’t like what follows me,’ recognise that for the threat that it is—not just to left-wing Labour MPs though, but to all of us. For yes, this is about what comes next. What role do you want to play?  Labour MPs now face a choice. They can back policies that will not work—least of all for their constituents—but will cause immediate harm to very vulnerable people.  Those who choose to back the proposals need to be clear that that choice will help to further mainstream the far right, and help build an infrastructure that any future government could use for authoritarian ends. This is not a shrill statement: those who might lead that future government are literally telling us that that is what they intend to do.
November 16, 2025 at 9:25 PM