LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1…10391040104210441045…1128

Comments

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    briantrumpet said:

    pblakeney said:

    "Enough is enough. If this Government refuses to govern – refuses, two unelected leaders in, to carry out its manifesto commitments – then it has no business hanging about. Call a general election, and let us put it out of its misery."

    More leftiebollox. In the Telegraph.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/15/rwanda-immigration-borders-conservative-party-betrayal/

    Leftiebile.
    Good new word, I shall be using that. Ta Brian :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,349
    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    pblakeney said:

    "Enough is enough. If this Government refuses to govern – refuses, two unelected leaders in, to carry out its manifesto commitments – then it has no business hanging about. Call a general election, and let us put it out of its misery."

    More leftiebollox. In the Telegraph.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/15/rwanda-immigration-borders-conservative-party-betrayal/

    Leftiebile.
    Good new word, I shall be using that. Ta Brian :)

    And I shall probably use its antonym, in reference to most Telegraph articles: rightiebile. To be fair to the Telegraph, their bile is mostly reserved for imaginary foes and concepts, such as Wokery and The Blob.

    Actually, that would be a good name for a band. And they'd get lots of publicity in the right-wing press.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,349
    I wonder how many Tory MPs are thinking this.

    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    skyblueamateur said:

    rjsterry said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Why not just call an election, put leaving the ECHR as part of the manifesto and then see whether they have a mandate for it.

    These last few years have been excruciating.

    Because it doesn't actually make any difference to our obligations regarding refoulement. The only way this policy can work is if the Rwandan government completely overhauls its asylum system. I'm not sure it's likely to do that just to keep an ex minister happy.
    I’m intrigued who the next bogeyman is. Where else is there to go?
    Isn't it the Scourge of Wokery™ for now. Then they can invent another one in a few months time.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • skyblueamateur
    skyblueamateur Posts: 1,498
    rjsterry said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    rjsterry said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Why not just call an election, put leaving the ECHR as part of the manifesto and then see whether they have a mandate for it.

    These last few years have been excruciating.

    Because it doesn't actually make any difference to our obligations regarding refoulement. The only way this policy can work is if the Rwandan government completely overhauls its asylum system. I'm not sure it's likely to do that just to keep an ex minister happy.
    I’m intrigued who the next bogeyman is. Where else is there to go?
    Isn't it the Scourge of Wokery™ for now. Then they can invent another one in a few months time.
    They’re already on to the homeless tbf. I’m intrigued as to how taking tents off all our war vets that are on the streets because we’re looking after the ‘boat people’ works if they get the Rwanda policy through.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,349
    Oh dear. More Tory lies. Oh, and the Prime Minister, to boot. Community-Noted.




    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    briantrumpet said:

    Oh dear. More Tory lies. Oh, and the Prime Minister, to boot. Community-Noted.




    It's fine. No foreign courts involved so he can tick that one off. He didn't allow a foreign court to stop flights to Rwanda. The rest is just details.





    After all if you actually stop the boats what on earth are you going to campaign on?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    Countries up and down the family.

    🙂
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,327
    skyblueamateur said:

    rjsterry said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    rjsterry said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Why not just call an election, put leaving the ECHR as part of the manifesto and then see whether they have a mandate for it.

    These last few years have been excruciating.

    Because it doesn't actually make any difference to our obligations regarding refoulement. The only way this policy can work is if the Rwandan government completely overhauls its asylum system. I'm not sure it's likely to do that just to keep an ex minister happy.
    I’m intrigued who the next bogeyman is. Where else is there to go?
    Isn't it the Scourge of Wokery™ for now. Then they can invent another one in a few months time.
    They’re already on to the homeless tbf. I’m intrigued as to how taking tents off all our war vets that are on the streets because we’re looking after the ‘boat people’ works if they get the Rwanda policy through.
    I've already explained this. Those in the boats/camps go to Rwanda and the war vets go from tents into the boats/camps. I was kidding but I wonder...
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • skyblueamateur
    skyblueamateur Posts: 1,498
    rjsterry said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    rjsterry said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Why not just call an election, put leaving the ECHR as part of the manifesto and then see whether they have a mandate for it.

    These last few years have been excruciating.

    Because it doesn't actually make any difference to our obligations regarding refoulement. The only way this policy can work is if the Rwandan government completely overhauls its asylum system. I'm not sure it's likely to do that just to keep an ex minister happy.
    I’m intrigued who the next bogeyman is. Where else is there to go?
    Isn't it the Scourge of Wokery™ for now. Then they can invent another one in a few months time.
    Now there’s a Minister for Common Sense ‘Wokery’ will be on its last legs in no time.

    Just typing ‘Minister for Common Sense’ and it not being a piss-take shows just how pathetic this Government is 😂
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    edited November 2023
    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    pblakeney said:

    "Enough is enough. If this Government refuses to govern – refuses, two unelected leaders in, to carry out its manifesto commitments – then it has no business hanging about. Call a general election, and let us put it out of its misery."

    More leftiebollox. In the Telegraph.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/15/rwanda-immigration-borders-conservative-party-betrayal/

    Leftiebile.
    Good new word, I shall be using that. Ta Brian :)

    And I shall probably use its antonym, in reference to most Telegraph articles: rightiebile. To be fair to the Telegraph, their bile is mostly reserved for imaginary foes and concepts, such as Wokery and The Blob.

    Actually, that would be a good name for a band. And they'd get lots of publicity in the right-wing press.
    They may go a bit far but that doesn't mean that there aren't any issues to be addressed in matters such as those. Unfortunately the standard Cake Stop approach seems to be to pretend that no issues exist at all: your post above is a good example.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,151
    briantrumpet said:

    Oh dear. More Tory lies. Oh, and the Prime Minister, to boot. Community-Noted.




    Good the hear you bigging up community notes/X.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,616
    veronese68 said:

    My favourite bit was Sunak saying he respects and accepts the decision of the Supreme Court at the beginning of a statement saying he's going to change the law to get round it.

    I can't say I'm too bothered about a government changing the law to make what they want to do legal. The UKSC is apolitical, in that it wasn't saying that the government's plan was wrong in a moral sense, just that it would break the law if implemented. There are all manner of cases in the past where governments implement laws specifically to allow them to do what they want to do.

    Where Sunak appears to have lost the plot is in failing to public acknowledge that the UKSC's judgement was based on factors in respect of which the UK government cannot legislate i.e. the implications of being a signatory to various UN conventions. UK legislation can no more make Rwanda safe than it can make water flow uphill.

    I'd like to think he's just stalling for time so that leaving the various international treaties that are in the "crosshairs" of the Tory nutjobs isn't feasible prior to the next GE after which the problem will go away as Labour won't prioritise it. (I think they do classify the small boats as a problem, but once in power they may coveniently forget that.)
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    skyblueamateur said:

    Why not just call an election, put leaving the ECHR as part of the manifesto and then see whether they have a mandate for it.

    These last few years have been excruciating.

    history would suggest that would be a very bad idea
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Current plan is to put it into UK law that Rwanda is actually fine, no backsies. That should do it.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,327
    kingstongraham said:

    Current plan is to put it into UK law that Rwanda is actually fine, no backsies. That should do it.

    Can they claim flat earth while they are at it?
    May garner a few extra votes.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    I see our previous (but three?) home secretary is describing the Rwanda policy as "sending asylum seekers who enter the UK illegally to Rwanda to have their claims considered there". If she actually believed in the policy, she would describe it in a way that is less open to incorrect interpretation.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/11/15/rwanda-supreme-court-people-smugglers-priti-patel-activists/
  • secretsqirrel
    secretsqirrel Posts: 2,123
    pblakeney said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Current plan is to put it into UK law that Rwanda is actually fine, no backsies. That should do it.

    Can they claim flat earth while they are at it?
    May garner a few extra votes.
    Nah flat earthers already vote for them.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,616
    kingstongraham said:

    I see our previous (but three?) home secretary is describing the Rwanda policy as "sending asylum seekers who enter the UK illegally to Rwanda to have their claims considered there". If she actually believed in the policy, she would describe it in a way that is less open to incorrect interpretation.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/11/15/rwanda-supreme-court-people-smugglers-priti-patel-activists/

    One can only admire the way the Tories have got "illegal immigration" into the political lexicon, almost unchallenged.

    Under their old friend "international law", there is nothing illegal about entering a country (or at least any country that has signed up the various conventions that civilised countries generally sign up to). The illegality only starts if an entrant does not report to the authorities. So by definition, everyone applying for asylum is acting legally.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I am still convinced, as presumably are they, that all this Rwanda immigration stuff is a vote winner.
    _
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,616
    edited November 2023
    rick_chasey said:

    I am still convinced, as presumably are they, that all this Rwanda immigration stuff is a vote winner.

    I imagine they are aiming at the waiverers heading towards the Reform Party rather than those heading to Labour or the LDs. I don't think it's a Brexit-like issue that will draw significant support from all parts of the political landscape.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    wallace_and_gromit said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I am still convinced, as presumably are they, that all this Rwanda immigration stuff is a vote winner.

    I imagine they are aiming at the waiverers heading towards the Reform Party rather than those heading to Labour or the LDs. I don't think it's a Brexit-like issue that will draw significant support from all parts of the political landscape.
    Wait till they find out the signed deal is for 200 migrants.

    It's a policy that if implemented would please noone. I'm convinced it's only while it's being thwarted that it has any currency at all.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    wallace_and_gromit said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I am still convinced, as presumably are they, that all this Rwanda immigration stuff is a vote winner.

    I imagine they are aiming at the waiverers heading towards the Reform Party rather than those heading to Labour or the LDs. I don't think it's a Brexit-like issue that will draw significant support from all parts of the political landscape.
    I would argue that racists are from all over the political spectrum and that it will prop up their own base and take votes off Labour
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,616
    kingstongraham said:

    wallace_and_gromit said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I am still convinced, as presumably are they, that all this Rwanda immigration stuff is a vote winner.

    I imagine they are aiming at the waiverers heading towards the Reform Party rather than those heading to Labour or the LDs. I don't think it's a Brexit-like issue that will draw significant support from all parts of the political landscape.
    Wait till they find out the signed deal is for 200 migrants.

    It's a policy that if implemented would please noone. I'm convinced it's only while it's being thwarted that it has any currency at all.
    Agreed. Though it may please those who oppose it if it is implemented and achieves nothing.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    wallace_and_gromit said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I am still convinced, as presumably are they, that all this Rwanda immigration stuff is a vote winner.

    I imagine they are aiming at the waiverers heading towards the Reform Party rather than those heading to Labour or the LDs. I don't think it's a Brexit-like issue that will draw significant support from all parts of the political landscape.
    You think anti-immigration sentiment is just for the nutters? Come on, did we learn nothing from Brexit?!

    We've got research that draws a direct link to two things: 1) those who were more exposed to austerity were more likely to vote brexit and that was the one of the single biggest factors in deciding who voted which way, and 2) that if you added up the % of people who were concerned about immigration and about leaving the EU, the total stayed roughly the same during the Brexit vote i.e. Brexit became just a different vehicle to express anti-immigration sentiment.

    We've also got polling that says: I
    n April 2023, 52% thought that immigration numbers should be reduced. The level of opposition varies by the type of question, and fewer people (32%) said that immigration was a bad or very bad thing.


    It is one of the few sticks they can beat labour with and Britain's anti-immigration sentiment is massively under-reported on.
    _
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,616
    rick_chasey said:

    wallace_and_gromit said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I am still convinced, as presumably are they, that all this Rwanda immigration stuff is a vote winner.

    I imagine they are aiming at the waiverers heading towards the Reform Party rather than those heading to Labour or the LDs. I don't think it's a Brexit-like issue that will draw significant support from all parts of the political landscape.
    You think anti-immigration sentiment is just for the nutters? Come on, did we learn nothing from Brexit?!

    We've got research that draws a direct link to two things: 1) those who were more exposed to austerity were more likely to vote brexit and that was the one of the single biggest factors in deciding who voted which way, and 2) that if you added up the % of people who were concerned about immigration and about leaving the EU, the total stayed roughly the same during the Brexit vote i.e. Brexit became just a different vehicle to express anti-immigration sentiment.

    We've also got polling that says: I
    n April 2023, 52% thought that immigration numbers should be reduced. The level of opposition varies by the type of question, and fewer people (32%) said that immigration was a bad or very bad thing.


    It is one of the few sticks they can beat labour with and Britain's anti-immigration sentiment is massively under-reported on.
    I was referring to the Rwanda plan rather than immigration per se. Even its supporters acknowledge that the UK will have to abandon various treaties, so it's not the "all cake" proposal that Brexit was billed as.

    One thing that is weird is that so few of the many people that are supposedly vexated by a few tens of thousands arriving via boat appear to have not even noticed that visas are currently being issued on an industrial scale.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Gotta see the Rwanada thing through the Brexit lens. Soft lefty stuff stopping Brits "controlling their borders".

    First it was the EU, now it's 'uman rights, etc.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,327
    Human rights are the real target.
    Rwanda is just the justification.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,616
    rick_chasey said:

    Gotta see the Rwanada thing through the Brexit lens. Soft lefty stuff stopping Brits "controlling their borders".

    First it was the EU, now it's 'uman rights, etc.

    I get that. But Brexit was all things to all men, and easy to present as being with no downsides:
    - Take back control
    - Sovereignty
    - Make our own laws
    - Immigration
    - A free kick at Cameron's nadgers

    Stopping small boats is much more of a niche interest, with acknowledged implications.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    wallace_and_gromit said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Gotta see the Rwanada thing through the Brexit lens. Soft lefty stuff stopping Brits "controlling their borders".

    First it was the EU, now it's 'uman rights, etc.

    I get that. But Brexit was all things to all men, and easy to present as being with no downsides:
    - Take back control
    - Sovereignty
    - Make our own laws
    - Immigration
    - A free kick at Cameron's nadgers

    Stopping small boats is much more of a niche interest, with acknowledged implications.
    Honestly, I think all of the "take back control, sovereignty, make our own laws" are all caught up in immigration anyway.

    _

Categories