Topic: Never mind 'Stop the Boats' - STOP THE TORIES

[Red Beret]

Express headline was "only huge tax cuts and growth can save Sunak now".

Clearly they misspelled "nothing".

[thaddeus]

Good old Rishi ensuring that the Labour vote turns out - we mustn't get complacent, this is just the message that needs to be put out by our friendly right wing media chaps.

That was my thought too when I saw some Tories clutching at that particular straw.  Them trying to pitch the "smaller parties" that may form a coalition with Labour as bogeymen seems likely to encourage people to ensure Labour get over the line cleanly.

Every vote for a Tory candidate is a vote for a hung parliament.  Catchy slogan, that.

That particular piece of dreadful forecasting has served a purprose for the Tories though as it took some of the attention away from how many councillors (and a mayor) they lost.

[Libertine]

https://twitter.com/I_amMukhtar/status/1787503035859492886

 

[Dr. Beaker]

https://twitter.com/I_amMukhtar/status/1787503035859492886

 

It's the George Harrison/Kylie Minogue situation all over again.

[Red Beret]

I'm praying this GE sees the end of the Tories as a political force and that they go the same way as the Liberals a century ago. I know people complain that the electorate have short memories, but if that shower get back in power again in my lifetime it'll be too soon.

Hoping that the Lib Dems eventually come to occupy the centre right as a one nation party, where there is at least some commonality between them and Labour. Of course, that is still some way away.

[west_london_red]

https://twitter.com/I_amMukhtar/status/1787503035859492886

 

I saw this on the TV earlier, was absolutely hilarious!

[Statto Red]

I've read something, not sure if true but farcical if it is true.

Apparently their are stipulations in the agreement that everyone who is sent must be given a Rwandan passport & they must be given Liberty of movement (in other words - they can't be locked up)

Which effectively means they can be sent there & then legally return to this country as a Rwandan citizen & since the UK has declared Rwanda a "safe" country, they can't be classed as illegal immigrants.

Also apparently, the person who left for Rwanda of his own free will last week has disappeared, with some speculating that he may have used the money to try to get himself smuggled back to the UK

[TheShanklyGates]

I've read something, not sure if true but farcical if it is true.

Apparently their are stipulations in the agreement that everyone who is sent must be given a Rwandan passport & they must be given Liberty of movement (in other words - they can't be locked up)

Which effectively means they can be sent there & then legally return to this country as a Rwandan citizen & since the UK has declared Rwanda a "safe" country, they can't be classed as illegal immigrants.

Also apparently, the person who left for Rwanda of his own free will last week has disappeared, with some speculating that he may have used the money to try to get himself smuggled back to the UK

Satire is truly dead if that's true.

[Riquende]

Satire is truly dead if that's true.

It would be a good indicator that new laws need to be debated and scrutinised properly by the HoC/HoL, and not just rammed through by the governing party for political expediency, sticking their fingers in their ears when amendments are offered and whispering "Stop the boats. Stop the boats." over and over.

[TepidT2O]

Satire is truly dead if that's true.

When israel tries  the same thing, one of the reasons they gave up doing it was for exactly this reason.

[west_london_red]

I've read something, not sure if true but farcical if it is true.

Apparently their are stipulations in the agreement that everyone who is sent must be given a Rwandan passport & they must be given Liberty of movement (in other words - they can't be locked up)

Which effectively means they can be sent there & then legally return to this country as a Rwandan citizen & since the UK has declared Rwanda a "safe" country, they can't be classed as illegal immigrants.

Also apparently, the person who left for Rwanda of his own free will last week has disappeared, with some speculating that he may have used the money to try to get himself smuggled back to the UK

I don’t think that’s correct. A Rwandan passport doesnt mean someone can come to this country without a visa, which I would imagine would be rejected as soon as the application is made. And if they came here illegally why can’t they be deported again? It’s not only asylum seekers who get deported.

[TSC]

Latest digital data breach.  Not via the MOD directly, but via its outsourced Payroll system.  When everything is outsourced at least put in place something resembling governance.  Unsurprisingly the MOD hasn’t named the private company involved.

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-06/uk-armed-forces-personnel-bank-data-accessed-in-ministry-of-defence-hack

[Lisan Al Gaib]

I don’t think that’s correct. A Rwandan passport doesnt mean someone can come to this country without a visa, which I would imagine would be rejected as soon as the application is made. And if they came here illegally why can’t they be deported again? It’s not only asylum seekers who get deported.

It is true.

Essentially the legislation states that anyone who is deported must be given Rwandan ID under section 13.2 of the treaty, however section 8.2 anyone with Rwandan ID can't be deported to Rwanda as it would not be classified as a safe country to them.

You genuinely can't make it up.

So effectively a migrant can cross the channel to get here, can put themselves up for voluntary deportation to get £3k, be given Rwandan ID, book a flight back to the UK and claim asylum again knowing they can't be sent back to Rwanda. Oh and despite all that happens the UK will still pay the Rwandan government for an empty hotel room for the following 5 years after.

[west_london_red]

It is true.

Essentially the legislation states that anyone who is deported must be given Rwandan ID under section 13.2 of the treaty, however section 8.2 anyone with Rwandan ID can't be deported to Rwanda as it would not be classified as a safe country to them.

You genuinely can't make it up.

So effectively a migrant can cross the channel to get here, can put themselves up for voluntary deportation to get £3k, be given Rwandan ID, book a flight back to the UK and claim asylum again knowing they can't be sent back to Rwanda. Oh and despite all that happens the UK will still pay the Rwandan government for an empty hotel room for the following 5 years after.

Why would they be given a visa to fly to the UK? A Rwandan passport doesn’t give you the right to come to the UK without a visa, it’s not like an EU, US, Canada passport where you can come to the UK without a visa.

[thaddeus]

It is true.

Essentially the legislation states that anyone who is deported must be given Rwandan ID under section 13.2 of the treaty, however section 8.2 anyone with Rwandan ID can't be deported to Rwanda as it would not be classified as a safe country to them.

You genuinely can't make it up.

So effectively a migrant can cross the channel to get here, can put themselves up for voluntary deportation to get £3k, be given Rwandan ID, book a flight back to the UK and claim asylum again knowing they can't be sent back to Rwanda. Oh and despite all that happens the UK will still pay the Rwandan government for an empty hotel room for the following 5 years after.

That would not be the default position.  They would need to demonstrate that being returned to Rwanda would put their life under immediate threat (e.g. a homosexual person being deported to Iran).  I think the bar for that would be extremely high as Rwanda abolished capital punishment in 2007.

We could end up with the merry-go-round of people being deported to Rwanda and then finding their way back to the UK again, being deported etc.

The whole policy is is virtue signalling anyway so there's no point in getting too concerned with the details.  If more than 100 people ever get deported this way I'll be very surprised - I think it's still more likely than not that nobody is ever deported to Rwanda.  It's a high profile policy that gives the Tories an excuse to wail about external interference (ECHR, human rights lawyers, Labour etc.).  That part of the political spectrum always need an imaginary foe to blame everything on.

[Dr. Beaker]

Why would they be given a visa to fly to the UK? A Rwandan passport doesn’t give you the right to come to the UK without a visa, it’s not like an EU, US, Canada passport where you can come to the UK without a visa.

Especially with a passport issued last week, probably in London.

[Kenny's Jacket]

It is true.

Essentially the legislation states that anyone who is deported must be given Rwandan ID under section 13.2 of the treaty, however section 8.2 anyone with Rwandan ID can't be deported to Rwanda as it would not be classified as a safe country to them.

You genuinely can't make it up.

So effectively a migrant can cross the channel to get here, can put themselves up for voluntary deportation to get £3k, be given Rwandan ID, book a flight back to the UK and claim asylum again knowing they can't be sent back to Rwanda. Oh and despite all that happens the UK will still pay the Rwandan government for an empty hotel room for the following 5 years after.

Whilst Id like this to be true, no airlane would let a Rwandan board a flight to the UK without a visa

[Sammy5IsAlive]

It is true.

Essentially the legislation states that anyone who is deported must be given Rwandan ID under section 13.2 of the treaty, however section 8.2 anyone with Rwandan ID can't be deported to Rwanda as it would not be classified as a safe country to them.

You genuinely can't make it up.

So effectively a migrant can cross the channel to get here, can put themselves up for voluntary deportation to get £3k, be given Rwandan ID, book a flight back to the UK and claim asylum again knowing they can't be sent back to Rwanda. Oh and despite all that happens the UK will still pay the Rwandan government for an empty hotel room for the following 5 years after.

section 8(2) states "In this Act, references to a person do not include a person who is a national of the Republic of Rwanda or who has obtained a passport or other document of identity in the Republic of Rwanda." . I'd imagine that a court would interpret the latter part as referring to somebody who actually got their passport/ID whilst in Rwanda. Under that reading (which likely reflects parliamentary intention) as long as a person is provided with their Rwandan passport/ID doc whilst in the UK before they are deported they would not be caught by this section.

[PaulF]

The whole policy is is virtue signalling anyway so there's no point in getting too concerned with the details.  If more than 100 people ever get deported this way I'll be very surprised - I think it's still more likely than not that nobody is ever deported to Rwanda.  It's a high profile policy that gives the Tories an excuse to wail about external interference (ECHR, human rights lawyers, Labour etc.).  That part of the political spectrum always need an imaginary foe to blame everything on.

We should run a sweepstake on how many people are confirmed deported to Rwanda.

-Actually, that's a bit sick --

[Red Beret]

The Tories need an enemy. Their whole philosophy is predicated on uniting people by giving them a bogeyman to hate on. It used to be the EU; now that Brexit is done they're scrambling around for something equally tangible. But immigrants doesn't seem to be getting as much traction as they'd like, so they're going after the ECHR as well.

[LuverlyRita]

But immigrants doesn't seem to be getting as much traction as they'd like, so they're going after the ECHR as well.

I always assumed that one reason for their batsh*t crazy handling of the former was to engineer an excuse to remove us from the latter

[thaddeus]

The Tories need an enemy. Their whole philosophy is predicated on uniting people by giving them a bogeyman to hate on. It used to be the EU; now that Brexit is done they're scrambling around for something equally tangible. But immigrants doesn't seem to be getting as much traction as they'd like, so they're going after the ECHR as well.

I think it's sadly getting a bit of traction but Reform UK are the primary beneficiaries.  The rent-a-gobs like Frottage outside the Tory party and Braverman within are calling out the Tories for having the anti-immigration powers they always bemoaned the EU had taken from them, but still not using those powers.

What Andy Street seemed to understand is that they're never going to take on cranks like Frottage and win them or their true believers over.  They will just slide further and further to the right but it will never be far enough.  If the Tories plonked themselves right back in the middle as a moderate centre-right party they'd take a lot of the wind out of Labour's sails - although probably still not enough to save them in the next GE as they've got so much ill-will from their mismanagement and scandals.

It was predictable but still depressing to hear Braverman's response to the local elections being that we should leave the ECHR.  I'm with Rita in that it seems as though leaving the ECHR is the main prize for that mob right now.

[west_london_red]

I read a piece in the Guardian that pretty much said the same, Cruella wants Sunak to own the election result when the truth is she should be one owning it, it’s people like her pulling the the Tories further and further to the right, the further to the right they go the less popular they become, and the more unpopular they become the more Cruella and her ilk pull further to the right.

[Red Beret]

I always assumed that one reason for their batsh*t crazy handling of the former was to engineer an excuse to remove us from the latter

The two are, of course, joined at the hip. But I don't think that, even combined, that they have the same political weight as the EU.

[Red Beret]

I think it's sadly getting a bit of traction but Reform UK are the primary beneficiaries.  The rent-a-gobs like Frottage outside the Tory party and Braverman within are calling out the Tories for having the anti-immigration powers they always bemoaned the EU had taken from them, but still not using those powers.

What Andy Street seemed to understand is that they're never going to take on cranks like Frottage and win them or their true believers over.  They will just slide further and further to the right but it will never be far enough.  If the Tories plonked themselves right back in the middle as a moderate centre-right party they'd take a lot of the wind out of Labour's sails - although probably still not enough to save them in the next GE as they've got so much ill-will from their mismanagement and scandals.

It was predictable but still depressing to hear Braverman's response to the local elections being that we should leave the ECHR.  I'm with Rita in that it seems as though leaving the ECHR is the main prize for that mob right now.

I don't think the Tories really went all that far to the right after 1997. They were just really incompetent as an opposition for a very long time. It was largely Iraq under Blair and the 2008 crash that let them back in through the back door.

Now though they really have lurched dangerously to the right. They're essentially extreme right at the moment. It boggles the mind that they will likely become even worse once in opposition, when they won't  have the responsibility of managing an economy.

[A-Bomb]

I don't think the Tories really went all that far to the right after 1997. They were just really incompetent as an opposition for a very long time. It was largely Iraq under Blair and the 2008 crash that let them back in through the back door.

Now though they really have lurched dangerously to the right. They're essentially extreme right at the moment. It boggles the mind that they will likely become even worse once in opposition, when they won't  have the responsibility of managing an economy.

Managed decline? because there has been sod all positive management of our economy for the last 14 years.

[oldfordie]

I think it's sadly getting a bit of traction but Reform UK are the primary beneficiaries.  The rent-a-gobs like Frottage outside the Tory party and Braverman within are calling out the Tories for having the anti-immigration powers they always bemoaned the EU had taken from them, but still not using those powers.

What Andy Street seemed to understand is that they're never going to take on cranks like Frottage and win them or their true believers over.  They will just slide further and further to the right but it will never be far enough.  If the Tories plonked themselves right back in the middle as a moderate centre-right party they'd take a lot of the wind out of Labour's sails - although probably still not enough to save them in the next GE as they've got so much ill-will from their mismanagement and scandals.

It was predictable but still depressing to hear Braverman's response to the local elections being that we should leave the ECHR.  I'm with Rita in that it seems as though leaving the ECHR is the main prize for that mob right now.

Andy Streets right but he's not giving the reasons why the Torys will never beat Farages Reform, Frottage can argue for all sorts of absurd populist policys, he can make all sorts of absurd arguments why these policys will work as he knows he will never be in a position of responsibility to implement these policys, the Torys do have that responsibility and they have been shown to be useless lies.
I remember what Frottage said hours after the result of the referendum, he was asked what happens now, what's the plan, his reply was, I haven't got a plan, they should have had a plan ready now pointing at Parliament, d/heads agreed with him as usual without giving it a second thought, so all the politicians who argued Brexit won't work should have had a plan to make it work if we voted to leave.    Frottage then pissed off to France or was it Germany for over a year and waited till everything went crazy then came back and kicked off again.
There was a woman on QT the other week who said she found herself agreeing with all of Reforms policys and will be voting for them, these d/heads still haven't learned, I doubt if anyone would disagree with most of Reforms policys, they've promised to make everything brilliant again so of course people will like what they promise, problem is they know they aren't going to win the election so will never have the responsibility of delivering those promises, Reform supporters need to wise up, they embarrass themselves falling for this bulls...

I read a piece in the Guardian that pretty much said the same, Cruella wants Sunak to own the election result when the truth is she should be one owning it, it’s people like her pulling the the Tories further and further to the right, the further to the right they go the less popular they become, and the more unpopular they become the more Cruella and her ilk pull further to the right.

That's a excellent point that can be missed so easily.

[Red Beret]

Managed decline? because there has been sod all positive management of our economy for the last 14 years.

More like barely managed.

What I mean is that whilst in government they at least have to try and do stuff. Once they're in opposition, all hell will break lose in the Tory ranks. Or at least the few Tory ranks that are left.

[thaddeus]

More like barely managed.

What I mean is that whilst in government they at least have to try and do stuff. Once they're in opposition, all hell will break lose in the Tory ranks. Or at least the few Tory ranks that are left.

Being a shadow minister does seem like quite a thankless and often pointless job.  Considering the Tories could barely cobble together a front-bench for much of the past seven years then we can only imagine what their next leader will be left with after the general election.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Shapps being defence minister tells you all you need to know about the tory c*nts.

[PaulF]

That's something I'd never thought of. The cabinet has to be drawn from a limited pool of people. Limited numbers wise.  If that pool is full of people with limited talent you have no choice but to form a poor government. Arguably a big majority gives you more choice.
If the tories can see they. Might have just a hundred MPs. Do they allocate the bluesest seats to the few they feel will make a good opposition. Or do the best ones just contest the areas they are in. The best of them might be in areas that are most likely to turn.
I can see why they lean heavily on the civil service, and doing that thing they did with Cameron isn't a bad idea. Ie if you have a talented politician with no seat, you bend the rules to get them in govnt.

[Red Beret]

That's something I'd never thought of. The cabinet has to be drawn from a limited pool of people. Limited numbers wise.  If that pool is full of people with limited talent you have no choice but to form a poor government. Arguably a big majority gives you more choice.
If the tories can see they. Might have just a hundred MPs. Do they allocate the bluesest seats to the few they feel will make a good opposition. Or do the best ones just contest the areas they are in. The best of them might be in areas that are most likely to turn.
I can see why they lean heavily on the civil service, and doing that thing they did with Cameron isn't a bad idea. Ie if you have a talented politician with no seat, you bend the rules to get them in govnt.

Not sure I'd put the words "Cameron" and "talented politician" in the same sentence, but you do you.

It's like when Bozo's entire government resigned from underneath him, and he was frantically trying to appoint ministers to the point they were holding several different offices at once. I think Corbyn was doing something similar at one point?

Bozo already purged the party of common sense. The government benches are currently naught but sycophants and ideologues. They have no vision, no plan. They want power simply for the sake of having power - and denying that power to others. Political squatters.

Doesn't matter if they have over 300 MPs or just 90 MPs, they're all too incompetent to even be in politics, much less in government. A heavy defeat might actually see off some of their crazies; but it will likely see the hardest of the hard core nut jobs in place.

[PaulF]

Yeah sorry. It was more the idea of parachuting in people you really want, rather than the pig fucker being talented.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Not sure I'd put the words "Cameron" and "talented politician" in the same sentence, but you do you.

It's like when Bozo's entire government resigned from underneath him, and he was frantically trying to appoint ministers to the point they were holding several different offices at once. I think Corbyn was doing something similar at one point?

Bozo already purged the party of common sense. The government benches are currently naught but sycophants and ideologues. They have no vision, no plan. They want power simply for the sake of having power - and denying that power to others. Political squatters.

Doesn't matter if they have over 300 MPs or just 90 MPs, they're all too incompetent to even be in politics, much less in government. A heavy defeat might actually see off some of their crazies; but it will likely see the hardest of the hard core nut jobs in place.

Sounds like a hashtag and slogan in the making, that.

[Red Beret]

Yeah sorry. It was more the idea of parachuting in people you really want, rather than the pig fucker being talented.

Understood!

I think their front bench will likely be made up of their safest seats - just in case they lose anyone else!

[Jiminy Cricket]

Understood!

I think their front bench will likely be made up of their safest seats - just in case they lose anyone else!

There remain, of course, few Tory MP's who are not completely stupid, let alone talented. I wonder, do you or anyone here have a handle on how many non-stupid Tory MPs are in safe seats? What I am getting at, what will the pool for the Tory shadow cabinet look like after the next election? It actually might be to the Tories' advantage to have so few seats that they end up coming third and do not form the Official Opposition. Being more invisible post GE might be to their advantage if they are ever to come back.

[Mutton Geoff]

I think and hope that after the GE the tories will continue to implode , the ones that are still around that is, i can see Reform picking up a few more right wing nutters as well!

[TSC]

Long gone are the days when anything worked

https://news.sky.com/story/travel-chaos-at-airports-across-uk-as-heathrow-and-manchester-confirm-nationwide-border-issue-13131309

[west_london_red]

I think and hope that after the GE the tories will continue to implode , the ones that are still around that is, i can see Reform picking up a few more right wing nutters as well!

First of all, welcome back Geoff!

My prediction for a long time is that they will go even further to the right, get a hammering at the election after next (2029), then move back to the centre with a new bring young thing like Cameron did, talk about ‘compassionate Conservatism’, ending the Nasty party, throw in a few green policies, and the whole cycle starts again.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I think and hope that after the GE the tories will continue to implode , the ones that are still around that is, i can see Reform picking up a few more right wing nutters as well!

I am eagerly awaiting the Tories being completely wiped off the map at the election and completely destroyed beyond.

Welcome back Geoff.