LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

briantrumpet

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

It's a topic that's been created by Tories' choices (Brexit, shutting off legal routes, and slow-walking dealing with claims), and now they've turned it into a slogan for Braverman. It has all the hallmarks of being chosen through focus groups, and amplified for pollitical gain (whilst ignoring the human cost).

So it’s an issue they’ve deliberately made a political football and they are seen to be doing even worse at it than everything else. You’d think they’d make their big policy announcements on things they can actually deliver.

Ah, that would require competency and a party that hadn't gone doolally about all the things they hate. To my mind, the Tories have gone the way of the Telegraph: both once vaguely sane and trustworthy (even if you didn't agree with the policies espoused), and now angry blobs sitting on bar stools with the fifth pint of the night in one hand, and a fag in the other.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

Pross

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

But they’ve been programmed to believe it does.

Jezyboy

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

I think a fair few do care. The bit I can't quite believe is that the government have decided that it's worthwhile to have it as such a high profile policy.

None of the policies seem particularly likely to succeed in anything other than keeping the story in the media, and showing the Tories failing at something.

The only possible benefit to them, riling up/motivating the Farage fans in their base. But the cost, turning off anyone who vaguely considers themselves in the center.

morstar

Jezyboy said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

I think a fair few do care. The bit I can't quite believe is that the government have decided that it's worthwhile to have it as such a high profile policy.

None of the policies seem particularly likely to succeed in anything other than keeping the story in the media, and showing the Tories failing at something.

The only possible benefit to them, riling up/motivating the Farage fans in their base. But the cost, turning off anyone who vaguely considers themselves in the center.

I think the assumption is they have their core blind faith supporters regardless so what other voters are available to them?

They must know they’ve long since lost moderate voters so the thick, easily led lot are the best target.

If that’s not pursuing power for its own sake, I don’t know what is.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

Well yes the correlation between knowing immigrants and being pro immigration is clear.

I think we’re all being a bit naive if we don’t think it matters all that much

briantrumpet

Oh goody, more popcorn please!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/27/boris-johnson-allies-step-bid-take-back-control-tory-party/

Backers of Boris Johnson aiming to “take back control” and “save” the Tory party will hold an inaugural conference in May.

The Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), a pressure group created after Mr Johnson and then Liz Truss were ousted from Downing Street, will hold its first gathering for grassroots activists in Bournemouth on May 13.

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries, two of Mr Johnson’s staunchest supporters, will give speeches alongside Priti Patel, the former home secretary.

Jezyboy

morstar said:

Jezyboy said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

I think a fair few do care. The bit I can't quite believe is that the government have decided that it's worthwhile to have it as such a high profile policy.

None of the policies seem particularly likely to succeed in anything other than keeping the story in the media, and showing the Tories failing at something.

The only possible benefit to them, riling up/motivating the Farage fans in their base. But the cost, turning off anyone who vaguely considers themselves in the center.

I think the assumption is they have their core blind faith supporters regardless so what other voters are available to them?

They must know they’ve long since lost moderate voters so the thick, easily led lot are the best target.

If that’s not pursuing power for its own sake, I don’t know what is.

I think the red wall offers an example of how making assumptions about core supporters can bite you in the bum.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

Football has no impact on the everyday lives of people, but millions of people care passionately about the outcome of matches, so I wouldn't underestimate how many people might be interest in the "small boats" issue even though completely unaffected by it.

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

rjsterry

Was reading last night that less than 10% of the allocated funds for levelling up have been spent.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

Well yes the correlation between knowing immigrants and being pro immigration is clear.

I think we’re all being a bit naive if we don’t think it matters all that much

Has not moved the polling needle in months despite it being one of their flagship policies. People have bigger stuff to worry about.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

I mean this is an obvious misnomer.

UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc

Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

Football has no impact on the everyday lives of people, but millions of people care passionately about the outcome of matches, so I wouldn't underestimate how many people might be interest in the "small boats" issue even though completely unaffected by it.

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

I don't recall small boats having their own dedicated tv coverage for several hours a weekend + 5 minutes of every single evening news. Disappointed that you are parroting the 'through a safe country' twaddle. This is just leveraging an accident of geography.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

I mean this is an obvious misnomer.

UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc

Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.

I don't think citing the UNHCR is going to win around many people.

You need to answer how you create a city the size of Durham each year to house and look after these people.

Why when we have a housing shortage does it not matter that 50,000 extra people come here each year?

The Govt is making cuts, they will fall harder on British people because immigrants are put in hotels.

Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these people

Pross

We could come up with an arrangement to ship our non-economically active people to Rwanda (or Spain if that's more palatable).

kingstongraham

Astonishingly, Gavin Williamson comes out of the latest Led by Donkeys video looking relatively competent (albeit unable to speak coherently).

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

I mean this is an obvious misnomer.

UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc

Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.

Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?

I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

Football has no impact on the everyday lives of people, but millions of people care passionately about the outcome of matches, so I wouldn't underestimate how many people might be interest in the "small boats" issue even though completely unaffected by it.

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

Disappointed that you are parroting the 'through a safe country' twaddle. This is just leveraging an accident of geography.

What's twaddle about claiming France is a safe country? If it isn't then I suggest that is a bigger issue in geopolitical terms than UK immigration policy.

And re the absence of TV coverage, it's worth noting that one thing the Tories historically are very good at it winning elections. So it's reasonable to assume that as they are focusing on "small boats" that said small boats are a non-trivial concern to a significant number of people. If this wasn't the case then the Tories wouldn't be wasting time on "fanning the flames".

pangolin

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

I mean this is an obvious misnomer.

UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc

Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.

Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?

I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.

Good effort to double down on it

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

We could come up with an arrangement to ship our non-economically active people to Rwanda (or Spain if that's more palatable).

Financially there must be a sweet spot where it is cheaper for us to pay a country to take them. Like the house clearance guys we should be able to make a profit on the doctors and nurses we deport.

ddraver

surrey_commuter said:

Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these people

At the moment? From the group itself...

briantrumpet

Tories: "We don't think it will work, but we'll support it anyway".

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1640362641821425665

surrey_commuter

ddraver said:

surrey_commuter said:

Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these people

At the moment? From the group itself...

I am pleasantly shocked that the medical authorities facilitate that.

Now if the construction industry, DVLA and fruit pickers associations agree to change the rules so these peoples qualifications/experience are recognised then the problem will solve itself

pblakeney

I am liking though concerned that this thread is confirming many of my preconceptions.

monkimark

You think there aren't any previous refugees working in construction or fruit picking?
What fruit picking qualifications are even available?

Pross

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

I mean this is an obvious misnomer.

UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc

Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.

Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?

I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.

So do you think the countries that are more easily accessible for refugees should have to take them all? The Government has made applying for refuge in the UK from the first safe country harder and therefore they are taking a riskier way here.

I'm actually amazed that anyone is prepared to risk their life travelling from France to the UK though to be honest. It's almost like there must be a very important draw such as family already living here.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

I'm actually amazed that anyone is prepared to risk their life travelling from France to the UK though to be honest. It's almost like there must be a very important draw such as family already living here.

I can't imagine it's the warmth of the welcome they'll get in the UK, especially with Braverman in charge.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

I mean this is an obvious misnomer.

UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc

Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.

I don't think citing the UNHCR is going to win around many people.

You need to answer how you create a city the size of Durham each year to house and look after these people.

Why when we have a housing shortage does it not matter that 50,000 extra people come here each year?

The Govt is making cuts, they will fall harder on British people because immigrants are put in hotels.

Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these people

Before you start fretting about the 50k refugees (twice the size of Yate sounds a little less hysterical BTW, Durham metro area has a population of 429,000) consider the 280k given visas. This government is not trying to control immigration and nobody should believe them when they say so

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.

Isn’t that the lesson we keep not learning from Cummings? People do care about it and they hate it

Am not convinced. It has zero impact on the everyday lives of most people.

Football has no impact on the everyday lives of people, but millions of people care passionately about the outcome of matches, so I wouldn't underestimate how many people might be interest in the "small boats" issue even though completely unaffected by it.

I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.

Disappointed that you are parroting the 'through a safe country' twaddle. This is just leveraging an accident of geography.

What's twaddle about claiming France is a safe country? If it isn't then I suggest that is a bigger issue in geopolitical terms than UK immigration policy.

And re the absence of TV coverage, it's worth noting that one thing the Tories historically are very good at it winning elections. So it's reasonable to assume that as they are focusing on "small boats" that said small boats are a non-trivial concern to a significant number of people. If this wasn't the case then the Tories wouldn't be wasting time on "fanning the flames".

The whole first safe country thing is just us wanting to dump our treaty obligations on someone else. Especially given our role in creating a large proportion of these refugees.

briantrumpet

wallace_and_gromit said:

And re the absence of TV coverage, it's worth noting that one thing the Tories historically are very good at it winning elections. So it's reasonable to assume that as they are focusing on "small boats" that said small boats are a non-trivial concern to a significant number of people. If this wasn't the case then the Tories wouldn't be wasting time on "fanning the flames".

I suspect it's because it's one of the few things left they think they can use, having screwed up just about everything else. Unfortunately (for them) I think they'll screw up this as well, but that's not the point... they want a three word slogan, like 'Build The Wall", but as building wall in the English Channel is problematic, this is what they've come up with, not least as it conjures up the image of lots of awful furriners (including international courts out to thwart plucky Brits).