LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

pblakeney

It's a tough choice.
Do you want to be booted out by your peers or the general public.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

His letter to Jenrick says that however much he'd like to override international law to a greater extent...

Well he has to say that to keep the headbangers on side, surely? Sunak presumably wants to avoid being rejected by his own party, even if that ultimately means being kicked in the nadgers by the voters at the GE.

No, they should definitely have *another* leadership election. 🤣

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Absolutely boggles the mind that people still give Sunak a pass and think he's some sort of moderate.

What on earth about his politics makes people think this. He chose his home secretary > he could have easily ignored her as she was thrown out of that role for breaking the rules.

He is a proper hardcore Brexiter and this is right in the Brexiter wheelhouse.

I certainly wasn't giving him a pass or think he's a moderate, more that there are still some people in the Party with enough clout that he realises he can't go as far as the full on loons like Braverman would like. As to the bit in bold I assume that this was something he was forced to accept to win the support he needed to become leader. That certainly isn't a defence of him, to me it just highlights how weak he is both morally and as a leader - anything to get the job.

kingstongraham

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

His letter to Jenrick says that however much he'd like to override international law to a greater extent...

Well he has to say that to keep the headbangers on side, surely? Sunak presumably wants to avoid being rejected by his own party, even if that ultimately means being kicked in the nadgers by the voters at the GE.

No, he wants it to be blocked by the Lords or the courts, not by Rwanda pulling out. So should the headbangers. Their stupidity is welcome, but hard to believe.

wallace_and_gromit

pblakeney said:

It's a tough choice.
Do you want to be booted out by your peers or the general public.

If you have to choose then surely it's the public. All political careers end in failure. Losing support of the public is an occupational hazard of high office, but being hoofed out by your own party is the ultimate condemnation. Though it does seem to be the norm for the Tories these days. If you assume Cameron jumped before he was pushed then the last four Tory PMs have all been stabbed in the back by their own.

Brings to mind the old saying about the HoC from the PM's perspective: The Opposition is in front of you. The Enemy is behind you.

Pross

It's certainly an interesting look. The original issue was whether Rwanda is a safe place and whether human rights would be observed yet they are the ones now raising concerns about international law whilst members of the UK Government are happily stating they are prepared to over-ride international laws.

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

His letter to Jenrick says that however much he'd like to override international law to a greater extent...

Well he has to say that to keep the headbangers on side, surely? Sunak presumably wants to avoid being rejected by his own party, even if that ultimately means being kicked in the nadgers by the voters at the GE.

No, he wants it to be blocked by the Lords or the courts, not by Rwanda pulling out. So should the headbangers. Their stupidity is welcome, but hard to believe.

I've got to the point where the goings on are so crazy that second-guessing is beyond me!

pblakeney

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

It's a tough choice.
Do you want to be booted out by your peers or the general public.

If you have to choose then surely it's the public...

I'd say so. The party will explode and he can say "Wasn't me in charge.".
Well, it was but he got put out during the drop and before the explosion. 😉

briantrumpet

Even Nick Robinson has had enough of Braverman. Hahaha. "The trush is I'm honest." I think that ship sailed from the Tory Party some while ago, and it's just laughable now.

https://twitter.com/MichaelTakeMP/status/1732687196887359517

briantrumpet

This isn't the party of Thatcher. This is not a serious party. They are just shïtting nd vomiting all over everything like malicious drunk teenagers before some grown-ups get home.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

This isn't the party of Thatcher. This is not a serious party. They are just shïtting nd vomiting all over everything like malicious drunk teenagers before some grown-ups get home.

Irony is all the actual teenagers and under 25s have left them all.

briantrumpet

Call me stupid, but I just cannot grasp how passing a domestic law can do this, any more than I can ignore judgements from a UK court by imagining that the word 'nothwithstanding' in some document I draft can absolve from me from crimes I might commit.

The emergency bill will give ministers the power to ignore some judgments from the European court relating to asylum, while stopping short of leaving or “disapplying” the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in its entirety.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/07/rishi-sunak-claims-new-rwanda-asylum-bill-will-prevent-legal-challenges

sungod

briantrumpet said:

Call me stupid, but I just cannot grasp how passing a domestic law can do this, any more than I can ignore judgements from a UK court by imagining that the word 'nothwithstanding' in some document I draft can absolve from me from crimes I might commit.

The emergency bill will give ministers the power to ignore some judgments from the European court relating to asylum, while stopping short of leaving or “disapplying” the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in its entirety.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/07/rishi-sunak-claims-new-rwanda-asylum-bill-will-prevent-legal-challenges

brexiters' fever dream

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

Call me stupid, but I just cannot grasp how passing a domestic law can do this, any more than I can ignore judgements from a UK court by imagining that the word 'nothwithstanding' in some document I draft can absolve from me from crimes I might commit.

The emergency bill will give ministers the power to ignore some judgments from the European court relating to asylum, while stopping short of leaving or “disapplying” the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in its entirety.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/07/rishi-sunak-claims-new-rwanda-asylum-bill-will-prevent-legal-challenges

It's the individual legal challenges part. One side argues that by not applying the law but letting individuals challenge it (which most of them won't, because they are penniless asylum seekers stranded in Rwanda or on their way home to be imprisoned or assasinated) they will still comply with international law. Which they won't, because it's a law that expressly contradicts international law and it's a stupid Trumpian argument to begin with.

The other side argues that the right to challenge means the emergency legislation will not be effective.

From what I've heard. The Supreme Court wouldn't change their view anyway, the UK can be left with a shitty bit of legislation that reduces human right here but can't be used for it's intended purpose.

I hope that they all rebel against one another and then just fuck off completely and change careers to write opinion pieces in NeoNazi Weekly rather than sit in parliament.

briantrumpet

I think they just think a 'notwithstanding' is as magic as 'abracadabra', and that sovrinty means you can ignore furriners anyway, if you use a few mumbo-jumbo words with a posh accent.

orraloon

briantrumpet said:

I think they just think a 'notwithstanding' is as magic as 'abracadabra', and that sovrinty means you can ignore furriners anyway, if you use a few mumbo-jumbo words with a posh accent.

Wot, like 'pfaw bibble latinus bolloxus'?

Must get a blond mop wig. Or not.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

I think they just think a 'notwithstanding' is as magic as 'abracadabra', and that sovrinty means you can ignore furriners anyway, if you use a few mumbo-jumbo words with a posh accent.

Well yes, in the sense that I'll instruct people to break the speed limit and waive enforcement of it, notwithstanding the fact that I can't.

The trick they are hoping to play is that they can be deemed to comply with European human rights laslws because some UK court could apply it. The counter argument is that a law that explicitly gives legal powers to ignore a law in fact contradicts that law.

Which one is more likely, do we think?

Watching this lot trying to govern is the equivalent of watching Eddie the Eagle take on the big hill. Interesting for some, but destined to end badly.

First.Aspect

Government ministers now pedaling the line, "These measures will result in the biggest drop of immigration we have ever seen."

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

Government ministers now pedaling the line, "These measures will result in the biggest drop of immigration we have ever seen."

Helps when you push it to record highs so a small percentage drop still represents a lot of people.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Government ministers now pedaling the line, "These measures will result in the biggest drop of immigration we have ever seen."

Helps when you push it to record highs so a small percentage drop still represents a lot of people.

Am I the only one who finds these pathetic attempts to hoodwink the public insulting to my intelligence?

rick_chasey

Not hoodwinking is it - it's just all they have left.

What else can they talk about? Economy? Their former leader crashed it. Crime? Half of crime is basically informally legalised as the police can't do sh!t. Tax? Highest since the war. Health? Worst state since the early 90s (hmmm). etc

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Not hoodwinking is it - it's just all they have left.

It could potentially hoodwink a labradoodle, but anything from a retriever up can see through it. Border collies are downright angry.

rick_chasey

Literally the only argument they have left is "labour would be worse", but most people figure there isn't much evidence for that since it's been 13 years since labour tried. And there's that awkward bit that if anyone thinks about it, every chart the UK has basically goes "everything gets worse in 2010".

Election is done - question is how done.

First.Aspect

Stevo is happy with the "labour would be worse" argument. I think he'd vote for a "labour might be worse" manifesto. I don't think he's alone, but the age vs voting intentions stuff you post is very interesting. I know that people lean right as they get older and less idealistic, but not THAT much.

wallace_and_gromit

First.Aspect said:

Government ministers now pedaling the line, "These measures will result in the biggest drop of immigration we have ever seen."

From what I've read, which makes sound sense, net immigration will fall sharply in the next year or so without anyone doing anything as there won't be the same number of visas granted re Ukraine and Hong Kong, and graduating overseas students will start returning home. There haven't been many graduating overseas students in the last two years as there wasn't the corresponding intake during the Covid years.

Pross

And now they've resorted to trying the 'throw Rwanda a bigger bung' tactic in the hope of getting them to support ignoring international law.

pangolin

Pross said:

And now they've resorted to trying the 'throw Rwanda a bigger bung' tactic in the hope of getting them to support ignoring international law.

I think they threw it several months ago and just refused to tell anyone. So it clearly didn't work.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

And now they've resorted to trying the 'throw Rwanda a bigger bung' tactic in the hope of getting them to support ignoring international law.

Is it running at £80m per home secretary on average now?

Have we any idea what the money is actually for? Mind you, I think it's cheaper than the Dorset prison ship, though I'll grant you that £240m for precisely zero migrants isn't a great bargain, though had we sent Truss and Kwarteng there to stay before their 'fiscal event', it would have saved a shedload of money.

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Government ministers now pedaling the line, "These measures will result in the biggest drop of immigration we have ever seen."

Helps when you push it to record highs so a small percentage drop still represents a lot of people.

Am I the only one who finds these pathetic attempts to hoodwink the public insulting to my intelligence?

Having taken a straw poll of provincial pensioners I have decided that the whole small boat thing is a work of genius.

It enrages their support and gives them a figleaf to cling to whilst at the same time enraging the leftie.

They literally had no idea that their chosen party had doled out 700,000 visas whilst banging on about 30,000 people in small boats

kingstongraham

If there's only 200 spaces in Rwanda, any individual small boat arrival would have to get pretty unlucky to end up there.