Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Big issues – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2023 in General
Big issues – politicalbetting.com

To what extent is immigration a top issue for Britons?Economy: 54% is A top issue / 30% is THE top issueImmigration: 41% / 20%Health: 41% / 13%Environment: 25% / 9%Housing: 21% / 5%https://t.co/3h4cfRDkfo pic.twitter.com/2Tq5sjNi1A

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Test to see if the comments work?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,803
    They do
  • Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,803
    I see I have become the SNP leader in HOC

    "Is th PM concerned he is forecast to become the first Tory ĺeader to be beaten by a fellow Thatcherite"
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455
    edited December 2023
    FPT

    I agree (with Leon) that 'right' and 'left' don't help at all here - as is much more generally the case. Among the countries most keen to police their borders are those often considered 'left' - Cuba, N Korea, China.

    The problem is that two good principles are not compatible: The principal that every country has the right to police their borders is not fully consonant with the right to flee persecution and seek asylum.

    The other problem is that all asylum seekers are equal but some are more equal than others. We don't hear an awful lot about being swamped or invaded by people from Hong Kong or Ukraine.

    I agree of course that large numbers of people are taking the Michael, but that is largely a problem because of UK Home Office incompetence over decades.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,054

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Sexual attraction can certainly be a very strange thing!
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,976
    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,334
    "The Post Office rewarded staff with bonuses if they hit targets for recovering money from subpostmasters blamed for accounting shortfalls, but scrimped and saved when it came to paying for vital evidence that would have cleared those suspected of wrongdoing."

    https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366562217/Money-at-heart-of-Post-Office-Horizon-scandal-blame
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,234
    edited December 2023

    I see I have become the SNP leader in HOC

    "Is th PM concerned he is forecast to become the first Tory ĺeader to be beaten by a fellow Thatcherite"

    How quickly John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard have been forgotten by history.

    Indeed, the Iron Lady popped in for a convivial tea with Gordon Brown following some extremely complimentary comments by him about her in 2007 (although of course he never beat a Tory leader - as PM at least).
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455
    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.

    The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.

    It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.

    Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.

    The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.

    It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.

    Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
    Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government

    That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,452
    Since some of you are interested in the obesity problem in the US, I thought I would show you this picture of the problem from the Kirkland 2008 4th of July parade:


    That's a picture of the "Dancercise" group that used to be regulars at our parades. (I haven't seen them since the COVID pandemic, but hope they will come back next year.)

    The ladies are, as you can probably guess from the picture, likely to be at least well off and well-educated. And that is why this is a picture of the obesity problem in the US: It is mostly a problem for the poor and those with little education. (Which is pretty unusual, historically.)

    We subsidize obesity in various ways, notably: "SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion.[2][3] Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.[2] Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and declined through 2017 as the economy recovered.[2] It is the largest nutrition program of the 15 administered by FNS and is a key component of the social safety net for low-income Americans." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

    (There are also significant charity contributions of food. They are important enough in some places so that, for example, a drug addict in San Francisco can get enough food to live on them, and sell his SNAP benefits for cash to buy drugs.)

    Recently, Dr. Leanna Wen, who writes on medical issues in the Washington Post, toyed with the idea of modifying SNAP to cut back on obesity. That might be a good idea medically, but it is absolute death, politically.


  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,054
    edited December 2023
    Hilarious to see the Tories tearing themselves apart in pursuit of whatever fraction of that 20% of the population doesn't hate them too much to vote for them.

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,310
    Worth noting that the Con 2019 -> now don't know look much more like those still intending to vote Conservative than those intending to vote Reform or left wing, which would align with a fair bit of swingback in that group. That said, they might just as well not vote. But don't look that likely to go full tonto vote Reform.
  • Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.

    The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.

    It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.

    Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
    Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government

    That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
    Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
  • I see I have become the SNP leader in HOC

    "Is th PM concerned he is forecast to become the first Tory ĺeader to be beaten by a fellow Thatcherite"

    If Starmer is a Thatcherite, what was Blair?
  • Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    If she had a practical solution, I'd consider that but she doesn't: she's playing to the gallery for personal advantage and little more.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,976
    Chris said:

    Hilarious to see the Tories tearing themselves apart in pursuit of whatever fraction of that 20% of the population doesn't hate them too much to vote for them.

    Im not sure how we can have a year of this - whilst waiting for an election.
  • Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    I'd rather we hammer Big Food. Those fuckers are poisoning us whilst raking in billions.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309
    Immigration as an issue has had a very volatile ride in polls for the last decade or so. It seems to go up very rapidly when immigration is in the news, particularly the more visible sort (i.e. refugees and small boats), gets supercharged as an issue when politicians argue over it, but then drops equally rapidly when either numbers temporarily drop or it simply falls out of the headlines.

    In this way it seems to behave a little like foreign policy and "standards in public life", which tend to alternate between very low salience and suddenly very high.

    Contrast with other topics, notably the economy, healthcare and the environment that are far less volatile - always there or thereabouts on the lists of important topics.

    For Labour I think this is a double edged sword. The focus on immigration is definitely damaging the Tories, but at the expense of Reform and apathy. Whereas a focus on the economy or, in particular, the state of public services like health and education, has more of a chance of moving votes across the floor to Labour.
  • I see I have become the SNP leader in HOC

    "Is th PM concerned he is forecast to become the first Tory ĺeader to be beaten by a fellow Thatcherite"

    Never ask a woman her age, a man his salary, and Stephen Flynn how the SNP voted in the 1979 motion of no confidence.

    https://twitter.com/willglloyd/status/1731316958614769986
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    I think by acknowledging it up front they arrempt to persuade the judges that Parliament deliberately meant to contradict it.

    Under parliamentary supremacy a law which contradicts a previous law was not a problem: in fact, that was often the point of it. But certain laws are ongoing, and judges take the position that a later law which contradicts those laws is wrong. The theory is that if Parliament deliberately contradicts those laws then Parliament, having stated its will in a considered manner, should take precedence

    (ie telling the EHRC to fuck off by accident or by insinuation is not good enough, but telling them deliberately may work)

    As ever IANAL and I am famously stupid
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,729
    Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    I don't think Braverman is doing anything other than banging her own drum. Truss was much the same. Both of them just want to be Maggie Mk II. Both of them are dire.

    As to the immigration issue I think there are really quite a lot of illegal immigrants here that don't appear in the numbers, and big numbers of 'tourists' that are nothing of the kind.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,002

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Exactly right. There's a gap in the market. I'd prefer it were not filled myself but that's not how markets work.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,054
    viewcode said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    I think by acknowledging it up front they arrempt to persuade the judges that Parliament deliberately meant to contradict it.

    Under parliamentary supremacy a law which contradicts a previous law was not a problem: in fact, that was often the point of it. But certain laws are ongoing, and judges take the position that a later law which contradicts those laws is wrong. The theory is that if Parliament deliberately contradicts those laws then Parliament, having stated its will in a considered manner, should take precedence

    (ie telling the EHRC to fuck off by accident or by insinuation is not good enough, but telling them deliberately may work)

    As ever IANAL and I am famously stupid
    Isn't it more likely for the benefit of the loony right of the Tory party?

    After all, the Supreme Court judges went to a lot of trouble to point out in their judgment - as though to a small and not very bright child - that it wasn't just a question of the ECHR.
  • Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    She should start by ensuring that the Home Secretary in charge over that period leaves politics disgraced.

    The government literally set a new target of 600,000 overseas students per year in 2020, because it wants/needs their cash. Now they have achieved it they are angry about it. Can't you see how pathetic that anger is? Why do you take her seriously?
  • Self-described moderate Tory MPs have caved to the hard right, yet again. It would merely be pathetic if it wasn’t so dangerous. If they can do this with regards to refugees and Rwanda, they can do it to anyone else too. Assuming they won’t is insane. They will.
  • Since some of you are interested in the obesity problem in the US, I thought I would show you this picture of the problem from the Kirkland 2008 4th of July parade:


    That's a picture of the "Dancercise" group that used to be regulars at our parades. (I haven't seen them since the COVID pandemic, but hope they will come back next year.)

    The ladies are, as you can probably guess from the picture, likely to be at least well off and well-educated. And that is why this is a picture of the obesity problem in the US: It is mostly a problem for the poor and those with little education. (Which is pretty unusual, historically.)

    We subsidize obesity in various ways, notably: "SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion.[2][3] Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.[2] Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and declined through 2017 as the economy recovered.[2] It is the largest nutrition program of the 15 administered by FNS and is a key component of the social safety net for low-income Americans." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

    (There are also significant charity contributions of food. They are important enough in some places so that, for example, a drug addict in San Francisco can get enough food to live on them, and sell his SNAP benefits for cash to buy drugs.)

    Recently, Dr. Leanna Wen, who writes on medical issues in the Washington Post, toyed with the idea of modifying SNAP to cut back on obesity. That might be a good idea medically, but it is absolute death, politically.


    Trans fats could be a new woke/anti-woke battlegound....
  • Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    People don't like immigration, they bleat on about it all the time, but they also don't like their mum's care home having no staff, or their kid's school having no teachers. We have a chronic labour shortage because of our society's changing demographic structure, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't like immigration then they need to either embrace higher pension ages or much worse services. I'm actually getting sick of people whining about immigration now. To think we left the EU to "fix" this problem too. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
  • I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,818

    Since some of you are interested in the obesity problem in the US, I thought I would show you this picture of the problem from the Kirkland 2008 4th of July parade:


    That's a picture of the "Dancercise" group that used to be regulars at our parades. (I haven't seen them since the COVID pandemic, but hope they will come back next year.)

    The ladies are, as you can probably guess from the picture, likely to be at least well off and well-educated. And that is why this is a picture of the obesity problem in the US: It is mostly a problem for the poor and those with little education. (Which is pretty unusual, historically.)

    We subsidize obesity in various ways, notably: "SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion.[2][3] Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.[2] Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and declined through 2017 as the economy recovered.[2] It is the largest nutrition program of the 15 administered by FNS and is a key component of the social safety net for low-income Americans." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

    (There are also significant charity contributions of food. They are important enough in some places so that, for example, a drug addict in San Francisco can get enough food to live on them, and sell his SNAP benefits for cash to buy drugs.)

    Recently, Dr. Leanna Wen, who writes on medical issues in the Washington Post, toyed with the idea of modifying SNAP to cut back on obesity. That might be a good idea medically, but it is absolute death, politically.


    Are you sure that picture isn’t just Boris’s exes going to collect their maintenance cheques?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461

    Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    People don't like immigration, they bleat on about it all the time, but they also don't like their mum's care home having no staff, or their kid's school having no teachers. We have a chronic labour shortage because of our society's changing demographic structure, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't like immigration then they need to either embrace higher pension ages or much worse services. I'm actually getting sick of people whining about immigration now. To think we left the EU to "fix" this problem too. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    No, it’s not going to get worse, as AI is about to make billions redundant

    Honestly, this whole debate is like listening to a massive row about stabling for extra horses in London in about 1898
  • BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    The cash cost is minor compared to the reduced public faith in our courts as the cabinet blatantly lies about the law and then pretends to be disappointed.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940

    Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    People don't like immigration, they bleat on about it all the time, but they also don't like their mum's care home having no staff, or their kid's school having no teachers. We have a chronic labour shortage because of our society's changing demographic structure, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't like immigration then they need to either embrace higher pension ages or much worse services. I'm actually getting sick of people whining about immigration now. To think we left the EU to "fix" this problem too. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    This mantra about a "chronic labour shortage" is just the inverse of the lump of labour fallacy. We could easily have managed without the mass immigration of the last 25 years, and it's highly debatable whether there has been any per-capita benefit as a result of it.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,452
    FPT: Two bits of American history for Cyclefree:

    From Tony Hillerman's first Navajo detective story, "The Blessing Way":
    "[Joseph Begay] was a short, round-faced man with the barrel chest charateristic of a Navajo-Pueblo blood mixture from a clan which had captured Pueblo brides and with them the heavier, shorter bone structure of the Keresan Indians."

    From Carl Sandburg's biography, "Abraham Lincoln", from the section describing Lincoln's part in the Black Hawk War:
    "They marched up Rock River, then to Stillman's battlefield, then back along the Rock River, some men believing they were being kept busy to lessen grumbling. On May 21 came news of an Indian party near Ottawa that killed, mangled and scalped three families, 15 persons, and took away alive two girls of 17 and 15."

    (Lincoln had volunteered to serve in a militia, and was elected leader of that group. The volunteers at first weren't much use to the regulars, or to the Indians who fought on the American side, but those volunteers who stuck with their service, improved.)

    Woman stealing was common in many tribes, sometimes for ransom, sometimes for wives.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,147
    edited December 2023

    I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    The King wouldn't agree, see the People's Budget saga and King George V.

    Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
  • Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
  • BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    Primary legislation is supreme, domestically. The point of the statement (apart from being required under the HRA) is basically to tell the Supreme Court to sod off (as they can't question primary legislation). All Bills needs to say whether they're compatible with the HRA or not. If they are, then by definition any actions taken under them have to also be compatible with the HRA. This Bill is enabling actions that are not compatible with it, and is preventing the courts from intervening.

    The ECtHR could still hear a case brought against the legislation but there'd be no power to compel the govt or parliament to do anything.

    Not that it matters. I don't expect it to ever reach the statute books. Even if it gets through the Commons, it'll fall in the Lords.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,042

    I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    The King wouldn't agree, see the People's Budget saga and King George V.

    Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
    There are 250+ John O's....
  • I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    The King wouldn't agree, see the People's Budget saga and King George V.

    Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
    Correct. George V demanded a second general election to test public opinion before agreeing to create the extra peers if necessary to get the Budget / Parliament Act through.

    Helpfully, the Tories restored the king's prerogative to dissolve parliament on his own initiative, earlier this parliament.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461

    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
    FFS. This isn’t Putinism it is democracy. In the end the people through Parliament must be supreme, no matter what a bunch of wanky N1 lawyers say

    This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531
    @JosiasJessop FPT

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but a nice bit of news - the wonderful National Library of Scotlands maps website has been extended to cover Ireland.

    https://maps.nls.uk/additions/

    Mostly the pre-indy maps and post-indy NI maps, but some military maps from WW2 ...

    Incidentally, this morning I watched a (for me) wonderful YouTube video on the building of the Erskine Bridge in the 1960s and 1970s:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dytx7z1yEg

    A bit of a cultural artifact, as well as a civil engineering document.
    I am listening to it now. Quietly fascinating, thank you.

  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
    FFS. This isn’t Putinism it is democracy. In the end the people through Parliament must be supreme, no matter what a bunch of wanky N1 lawyers say

    This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
    Look democrats believe in separation of powers, an independent judiciary as well as legislative power.

    Putinists don't like the indepedent judiciary or separation of powers bit. Which are you?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461

    I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    The King wouldn't agree, see the People's Budget saga and King George V.

    Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
    Correct. George V demanded a second general election to test public opinion before agreeing to create the extra peers if necessary to get the Budget / Parliament Act through.

    Helpfully, the Tories restored the king's prerogative to dissolve parliament on his own initiative, earlier this parliament.
    So Abolish the Monarchy too. And get rid of the Lords. And change the name of the country to Leonia
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,234
    edited December 2023

    I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    On balance, I don't think he will as we're pretty close to a General Election. Indeed, trying to make it a "Get Rwanda Done" election as 2019 was a "Get Brexit Done" election isn't a bad strategy whereas packing the Lords looks like pure corruption - giving gongs to your mates before you lose power.

    I don't think "Get Rwanda Done" will work in the same way ultimately as Brexit was a huge issue where we'd had a referendum. Rwanda is just a policy which has never been in a manifesto yet let alone a referendum (so isn't a "will of the people" thing - it's like any other policy idea). Also quite a few people just don't support the policy at all, quite a few think is okay but only if Rwanda really is a safe place to send people, and quite a few see as a bit niche even if they broadly support the idea. So there is no real reason to believe Sunak CAN make the election a referendum on the matter - people don't have to agree that's what the election is all about, and probably won't.
  • Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    People don't like immigration, they bleat on about it all the time, but they also don't like their mum's care home having no staff, or their kid's school having no teachers. We have a chronic labour shortage because of our society's changing demographic structure, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't like immigration then they need to either embrace higher pension ages or much worse services. I'm actually getting sick of people whining about immigration now. To think we left the EU to "fix" this problem too. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    This mantra about a "chronic labour shortage" is just the inverse of the lump of labour fallacy. We could easily have managed without the mass immigration of the last 25 years, and it's highly debatable whether there has been any per-capita benefit as a result of it.
    That's nonsense. What matters is the dependency ratio - the share of non workers to working age people. When it's too high, you have too few workers and you find firms desperate to bring in people. And that works because immigrants are disproportionately of working age. You're seeing exactly the same pressures to bring in people everywhere this demographic problem is playing out. People need to stop whining about immigration and come up with solutions that will actually work, like significantly raising the pension age.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
    FFS. This isn’t Putinism it is democracy. In the end the people through Parliament must be supreme, no matter what a bunch of wanky N1 lawyers say

    This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
    Look democrats believe in separation of powers, an independent judiciary as well as legislative power.

    Putinists don't like the indepedent judiciary or separation of powers bit. Which are you?
    Separation of powers is meant to provide checks and balances, not to cripple the executive in exercising the will of the people

    If the democratically elected government decides to go to war, no court dares to stop it. The security of our borders is of equal importance
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940

    Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    People don't like immigration, they bleat on about it all the time, but they also don't like their mum's care home having no staff, or their kid's school having no teachers. We have a chronic labour shortage because of our society's changing demographic structure, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't like immigration then they need to either embrace higher pension ages or much worse services. I'm actually getting sick of people whining about immigration now. To think we left the EU to "fix" this problem too. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    This mantra about a "chronic labour shortage" is just the inverse of the lump of labour fallacy. We could easily have managed without the mass immigration of the last 25 years, and it's highly debatable whether there has been any per-capita benefit as a result of it.
    That's nonsense. What matters is the dependency ratio - the share of non workers to working age people. When it's too high, you have too few workers and you find firms desperate to bring in people. And that works because immigrants are disproportionately of working age. You're seeing exactly the same pressures to bring in people everywhere this demographic problem is playing out. People need to stop whining about immigration and come up with solutions that will actually work, like significantly raising the pension age.
    “In the year to September, 143,990 foreign health and care workers brought 173,896 dependants with them"

    Is that helping the dependency ratio?

    You think your position is based on rational common sense, but it sounds more like a religious belief in the benefits of immigration.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
    FFS. This isn’t Putinism it is democracy. In the end the people through Parliament must be supreme, no matter what a bunch of wanky N1 lawyers say

    This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
    Look democrats believe in separation of powers, an independent judiciary as well as legislative power.

    Putinists don't like the indepedent judiciary or separation of powers bit. Which are you?
    You're repeating imported platitudes from America that don't really apply to our constitution as it always used to operate.

    It might sound clever to rationalise why 'democracy' depends on overruling the wishes of the people, but it's storing up a lot of problems for the future.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
    FFS. This isn’t Putinism it is democracy. In the end the people through Parliament must be supreme, no matter what a bunch of wanky N1 lawyers say

    This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
    Look democrats believe in separation of powers, an independent judiciary as well as legislative power.

    Putinists don't like the indepedent judiciary or separation of powers bit. Which are you?
    Separation of powers is meant to provide checks and balances, not to cripple the executive in exercising the will of the people

    If the democratically elected government decides to go to war, no court dares to stop it. The security of our borders is of equal importance
    But is it the will of the people?

    Rwanda wasn't in the 2019 manifesto. If it was, the Lords would be pretty stymied by convention. So they're more than justified in delaying it for a year. The government's lack of preparation is not their emergency.

    Maybe that's Sunak's plan- cosplay Autumn 2019, wind up the stress and go to the electorate on "Get Rwanda Done".

    Heck, maybe it would work (though I don't think the plan, such as it is, can withstand that close scrutiny.)

    But that's how you do big ticket stuff. Put it in a manifesto and win an election on it.

    If you think you're hard enough.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    Actually, a “who runs the country” election could save quite a lot of Tory MPs, if it was handled well

    They would still lose, but they might win back people like me if they made it that stark. “We want to control out borders, the blob won’t let us, vote for a free and independent Britain run by the voters, not the lawyers”

    It would be low and conniving, but I could see it nudging the Tories over 30%: enough to seriously diminish Starmer’s majority
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,213

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.

    The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.

    It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.

    Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
    Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government

    That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
    Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
    The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.

    The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
  • Leon said:

    Actually, a “who runs the country” election could save quite a lot of Tory MPs, if it was handled well

    They would still lose, but they might win back people like me if they made it that stark. “We want to control out borders, the blob won’t let us, vote for a free and independent Britain run by the voters, not the lawyers”

    It would be low and conniving, but I could see it nudging the Tories over 30%: enough to seriously diminish Starmer’s majority

    Ted Heath waves hello.

    When you ask who governs the country will reply with 'not you mate'.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    That sets a dangerous precedent which you’ll regret when the government wants to do something that you disagree with . The whole point of supranational bodies like the ECHR is to protect citizens from over reach by their own government.

    The right wing love-in on withdrawing from bodies like the ECHR ignores that governments change and what if Labour started doing things that more right wing voters hated .

    You’re also ignoring that the Tories don’t have an electoral mandate to withdraw from the ECHR . It wasn’t in the last manifesto . If the Tories are so desperate that they want to put the UK in the same company as Russia and Belarus they should call a GE.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,147
    edited December 2023
    Leon said:

    I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    The King wouldn't agree, see the People's Budget saga and King George V.

    Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
    Correct. George V demanded a second general election to test public opinion before agreeing to create the extra peers if necessary to get the Budget / Parliament Act through.

    Helpfully, the Tories restored the king's prerogative to dissolve parliament on his own initiative, earlier this parliament.
    So Abolish the Monarchy too. And get rid of the Lords. And change the name of the country to Leonia
    I am so old I rememmber when you said republicans were traitorous wokeistas
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461

    Leon said:

    Actually, a “who runs the country” election could save quite a lot of Tory MPs, if it was handled well

    They would still lose, but they might win back people like me if they made it that stark. “We want to control out borders, the blob won’t let us, vote for a free and independent Britain run by the voters, not the lawyers”

    It would be low and conniving, but I could see it nudging the Tories over 30%: enough to seriously diminish Starmer’s majority

    Ted Heath waves hello.

    When you ask who governs the country will reply with 'not you mate'.
    Yeah, but the Tories are heading for total oblivion. This might limit it to “modest oblivion”
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461

    Leon said:

    I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    The King wouldn't agree, see the People's Budget saga and King George V.

    Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
    Correct. George V demanded a second general election to test public opinion before agreeing to create the extra peers if necessary to get the Budget / Parliament Act through.

    Helpfully, the Tories restored the king's prerogative to dissolve parliament on his own initiative, earlier this parliament.
    So Abolish the Monarchy too. And get rid of the Lords. And change the name of the country to Leonia
    I am so old when you said republicans were traitorous wokeistas
    You have incredible powers of persuasion. Be proud
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,729

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.

    The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.

    It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.

    Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
    Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government

    That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
    Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
    The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.

    The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
    Hey LG

    Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
    FFS. This isn’t Putinism it is democracy. In the end the people through Parliament must be supreme, no matter what a bunch of wanky N1 lawyers say

    This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
    Look democrats believe in separation of powers, an independent judiciary as well as legislative power.

    Putinists don't like the indepedent judiciary or separation of powers bit. Which are you?
    You're repeating imported platitudes from America that don't really apply to our constitution as it always used to operate.

    It might sound clever to rationalise why 'democracy' depends on overruling the wishes of the people, but it's storing up a lot of problems for the future.
    Democracy doesn't depend on overturning the will of the people.

    About one in five support the government, it is not the will of the people.
    They have gone through multiple opposite policy sets since the last election, it is not the will of the people.
    They can't get a majority in the commons for policies that are consistent with previous law, it is not the will of the people.
    The cabinet are split on what to do, the Immigration minister, PM and previous Home Secretary have three differnet plans, which of these is supposedly the clear will of the people that must be followed?

    If there was Commons and Lords support for a law to implement the Rwanda plan, it could be done by competent and honest politicians. The cabinet are neither honest nor competent, nor do they have a majority from the last election for this.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,417
    edited December 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
    FFS. This isn’t Putinism it is democracy. In the end the people through Parliament must be supreme, no matter what a bunch of wanky N1 lawyers say

    This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
    Look democrats believe in separation of powers, an independent judiciary as well as legislative power.

    Putinists don't like the independent judiciary or separation of powers bit. Which are you?
    The Courts have never* had oversight of parliament. The Bill of Rights sees to that.

    And that's as it should be. Parliament is ultimately accountable to the people; the courts are not accountable to anyone and should not, therefore, be able to frustrate the explicit will of parliament.

    * Since 1689 in law; earlier in practice.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,866
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1732453413210730743
    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    BREAKING: Rwanda government threatens to pull out of the deal if it does not adhere to international law.

    Hugely problematic - and potentially humiliating - for govt if its partner country decides the deal is too toxic.

    Statement below 👇
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    The King wouldn't agree, see the People's Budget saga and King George V.

    Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
    Correct. George V demanded a second general election to test public opinion before agreeing to create the extra peers if necessary to get the Budget / Parliament Act through.

    Helpfully, the Tories restored the king's prerogative to dissolve parliament on his own initiative, earlier this parliament.
    So Abolish the Monarchy too. And get rid of the Lords. And change the name of the country to Leonia
    I am so old when you said republicans were traitorous wokeistas
    You have incredible powers of persuasion. Be proud
    As I said, only cucks would support having an unelected family as our head of state.
  • eek said:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1732453413210730743
    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    BREAKING: Rwanda government threatens to pull out of the deal if it does not adhere to international law.

    Hugely problematic - and potentially humiliating - for govt if its partner country decides the deal is too toxic.

    Statement below 👇

    A few hundred mil extra should sort it.
  • Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    I'd rather we hammer Big Food. Those fuckers are poisoning us whilst raking in billions.
    Big Food, no, locally-owned takeaways do more damage.
    I live in a town of 9,000 people. I can count 10 takeaways that do home deliveries.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,213
    edited December 2023
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.

    The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.

    It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.

    Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
    Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government

    That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
    Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
    The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.

    The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
    Hey LG

    Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
    The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1732453413210730743
    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    BREAKING: Rwanda government threatens to pull out of the deal if it does not adhere to international law.

    Hugely problematic - and potentially humiliating - for govt if its partner country decides the deal is too toxic.

    Statement below 👇

    Oh dear how embarrassing! This government are beyond useless .
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531

    Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    People don't like immigration, they bleat on about it all the time, but they also don't like their mum's care home having no staff, or their kid's school having no teachers. We have a chronic labour shortage because of our society's changing demographic structure, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't like immigration then they need to either embrace higher pension ages or much worse services. I'm actually getting sick of people whining about immigration now. To think we left the EU to "fix" this problem too. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    This mantra about a "chronic labour shortage" is just the inverse of the lump of labour fallacy. We could easily have managed without the mass immigration of the last 25 years, and it's highly debatable whether there has been any per-capita benefit as a result of it.
    That's nonsense. What matters is the dependency ratio - the share of non workers to working age people. When it's too high, you have too few workers and you find firms desperate to bring in people. And that works because immigrants are disproportionately of working age. You're seeing exactly the same pressures to bring in people everywhere this demographic problem is playing out. People need to stop whining about immigration and come up with solutions that will actually work, like significantly raising the pension age.
    “In the year to September, 143,990 foreign health and care workers brought 173,896 dependants with them"
    • 143990+173896=317886
    • Capacity of a BA Airbus-A380: 469
    • 317886/469=678 ish
    • So that's 678 Airbuses in nine months
    • 678/9*12= 904 Airbuses per year
    • 904/52= 17 Airbuses per week, or 5 Airbuses A380s every two days
    So we are importing 5 Airbuses every two days full of care workers and their families

    or
    • 143990+173896=317886
    • 317886/9*12= 423848 people per year
    So we are importing 423,848 people per year, including their dependants, to work in the health and care sectors

    And that doesn't include the nine squillion people we are importing to do courses.

    I know @rcs1000 had a good video in favor of mass immigration to solve problems. But this really is rather a lot of people.
  • nico679 said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1732453413210730743
    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    BREAKING: Rwanda government threatens to pull out of the deal if it does not adhere to international law.

    Hugely problematic - and potentially humiliating - for govt if its partner country decides the deal is too toxic.

    Statement below 👇

    Oh dear how embarrassing! This government are beyond useless .
    Don't get ahead of yourself, Lord Cameron will sort it out.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    edited December 2023

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    I'd rather we hammer Big Food. Those fuckers are poisoning us whilst raking in billions.
    Big Food, no, locally-owned takeaways do more damage.
    I live in a town of 9,000 people. I can count 10 takeaways that do home deliveries.
    But do not they depend on a supply of mass-produced pre-prepared food? Edit: and/or the ingredients.

    Maybe not so much the straight fish and chips people. But burgers, pizzas etc.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,866
    edited December 2023
    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1732459709548941803

    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    MPs now believe Robert Jenrick has resigned - I'm told Simon Clarke asked Rishi Sunak directly at the 1922 meeting if he had stepped down and the PM did not deny it
  • Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    People don't like immigration, they bleat on about it all the time, but they also don't like their mum's care home having no staff, or their kid's school having no teachers. We have a chronic labour shortage because of our society's changing demographic structure, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't like immigration then they need to either embrace higher pension ages or much worse services. I'm actually getting sick of people whining about immigration now. To think we left the EU to "fix" this problem too. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    This mantra about a "chronic labour shortage" is just the inverse of the lump of labour fallacy. We could easily have managed without the mass immigration of the last 25 years, and it's highly debatable whether there has been any per-capita benefit as a result of it.
    That's nonsense. What matters is the dependency ratio - the share of non workers to working age people. When it's too high, you have too few workers and you find firms desperate to bring in people. And that works because immigrants are disproportionately of working age. You're seeing exactly the same pressures to bring in people everywhere this demographic problem is playing out. People need to stop whining about immigration and come up with solutions that will actually work, like significantly raising the pension age.
    “In the year to September, 143,990 foreign health and care workers brought 173,896 dependants with them"

    Is that helping the dependency ratio?

    You think your position is based on rational common sense, but it sounds more like a religious belief in the benefits of immigration.
    Yes because I would guess a high proportion of those dependents are children, who create far less demand for goods and services and hence jobs than pensioners do.
    I don't have any particular attachment to immigration but as I work with a load of immigrants in a company set up by immigrants and am married to the daughter of immigrants I struggle to get too upset about it either. People are people.
  • I cannot believe anybody ever doubted Sam Curran.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640

    nico679 said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1732453413210730743
    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    BREAKING: Rwanda government threatens to pull out of the deal if it does not adhere to international law.

    Hugely problematic - and potentially humiliating - for govt if its partner country decides the deal is too toxic.

    Statement below 👇

    Oh dear how embarrassing! This government are beyond useless .
    Don't get ahead of yourself, Lord Cameron will sort it out.
    You have an unhealthy obsession with Cameron . Seek help !
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,931
    Hopefully another domino falls in the battle for truth in Scotland. https://news.stv.tv/politics/judge-throws-out-bid-against-disclosure-of-nicola-sturgeon-inquiry-evidence
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,729

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.

    The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.

    It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.

    Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
    Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government

    That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
    Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
    The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.

    The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
    Hey LG

    Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
    The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
    Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.

    The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1732459709548941803

    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    MPs now believe Robert Jenrick has resigned - I'm told Simon Clarke asked Rishi Sunak directly at the 1922 meeting if he had stepped down and the PM did not deny it

    Good riddance . The loathsome creature can go back to killing kittens and demanding the removal of anything that puts a smile on the face of a child migrant .
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,986
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    BREAKING - note at the start of the Government’s emergency ‘Safety of Rwanda’ Bill says it is not compatible with the ECHR.

    What’s the point of this then?

    People slightly misunderstand how this works. Where possible to interpret legislation in more than one way, one of which is compatible with the ECHR and the other not, courts have to interpret it in the compatible way, even if it is a little strained under the natural language, as it is deemed it could not have been the intention of Parliament to legislate in a way that is incompatible with human rights.

    However, if legislation cannot be interpreted as being compatible with ECHR, the fall-back is a "declaration of incompatibility" - but this does NOT strike down primary legislation (it does for secondary legislation) and instead the law applies in the case but Parliament is asked to reconsider (which has always resulted in a subsequent change to the law in the past but need not). That's Parliamentary sovereignty - ultimately, if they genuinely intend to legislate in breach of human rights, they can. That is the case here - section 3 of the Bill explicitly disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act, and the SoS as you say doesn't even argue it is compatible.

    Remember that the original Rwanda law was NOT declared incompatible despite what some journalists have said. The Government essentially lost on the facts - their insistence Rwanda was a safe third country was not true due to the risk of refoulement (unlawful return to country of origin), and therefore the Government was in breach of domestic and international law on asylum (rather than human rights law as such) by pursuing the policy.

    The Government has huge challenges with this. Firstly, the Lords will absolutely hammer it as it wasn't in the manifesto of the Conservative Party to disapply human right law on this or anything else. Secondly, I think the courts would have an absolute field day with the idea of legislating facts rather than law (the "Two Plus Two Is Five Bill") which is, er, novel, minister.

    Essentially, none of this is about getting it done - it won't be. It's Sunak spaffing millions of taxpayer cash up the wall to create a wedge issue for the election.

    In the end, the people via Parliament are sovereign, and they must overrule any court or withdraw from any Treaty that prevents Parliament exercising its will

    If the Supreme Court stands in the way, disband the Supreme Court. It is that basic. The people want our borders policed, so get it done
    Spoken like a true Putinist.
    FFS. This isn’t Putinism it is democracy. In the end the people through Parliament must be supreme, no matter what a bunch of wanky N1 lawyers say

    This is why we had a a Civil War, this is why we had Brexit. Parliament is supreme, as it is the embodied will of the people
    At the moment it is only embodying the will of 25% of the people.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,263
    edited December 2023
    Republican House Speaker - Quite the eye opener.

    Around 400 rioters have been convicted for crimes and sent to prison, with hundreds more sentenced but not to prison time.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, third in line to the Presidency, on the process of publishing all the security tapes:

    "We're going through a methodical process of releasing them as quickly as we can. As you know, we have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don't want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DoJ and to have other, you know, concerns and problems."

    The mind truly boggles.

    https://twitter.com/podsaveamerica/status/1732095351681843644
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,927
    Swinging to little issues - there is a nice selection of local by-elections tomorrow. Con defences in Bromley and Hertfordshire; LD defences in North Norfolk and St. Albans; and a Lab defence in Denbighshire.
  • So this is fun.

    The Home Secretary prefaces the "Beaches are Safe" bill with a statement that he can't say this is compatible with ECHR but the government are doing it anyway

    Rwanda issue a statement saying they're out if the bill breaches the ECHR

    Robert tooboringtobotherinsulting Jenrick resigns as Migration minister because the bill isn't tough enough

    Pass the popcorn.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    nico679 said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1732459709548941803

    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    MPs now believe Robert Jenrick has resigned - I'm told Simon Clarke asked Rishi Sunak directly at the 1922 meeting if he had stepped down and the PM did not deny it

    Good riddance . The loathsome creature can go back to killing kittens and demanding the removal of anything that puts a smile on the face of a child migrant .
    Kittens? What on earth has he done?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    Carnyx said:

    nico679 said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1732459709548941803

    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    MPs now believe Robert Jenrick has resigned - I'm told Simon Clarke asked Rishi Sunak directly at the 1922 meeting if he had stepped down and the PM did not deny it

    Good riddance . The loathsome creature can go back to killing kittens and demanding the removal of anything that puts a smile on the face of a child migrant .
    Kittens? What on earth has he done?
    Have you been on Mars .
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466

    So this is fun.

    The Home Secretary prefaces the "Beaches are Safe" bill with a statement that he can't say this is compatible with ECHR but the government are doing it anyway

    Rwanda issue a statement saying they're out if the bill breaches the ECHR

    Robert tooboringtobotherinsulting Jenrick resigns as Migration minister because the bill isn't tough enough

    Pass the popcorn.

    Also wondering what happens to all that money spent on 0 migrants. Is there a refund clause?
  • viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    Hence, Braverman's speech. She knows exactly what she's doing. She's watched Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro and the rest and fancies a piece of the action.

    Or, Braverman is doing the job of democratic politics and reflecting public concern. See the polls in the header

    The UK is experiencing waves of immigration that are unprecedented both in its own history, and in the history of most nations. Literally 1.3 million people in just two years. On top of that we have a minor invasion by boat across the Channel of tens of thousands every year, which we seem utterly incapable of stemming

    And yet even the slightest attempt to reduce either influx is labelled as “hard right” or “Orbanite” or some other insane hyperbolic nonsense

    it is quite surreal to watch, and - irony of ironies - if we continue to avoid tackling the problem, that WILL lead to actual Fascists in power and then you will have a reason for your bleating
    People don't like immigration, they bleat on about it all the time, but they also don't like their mum's care home having no staff, or their kid's school having no teachers. We have a chronic labour shortage because of our society's changing demographic structure, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't like immigration then they need to either embrace higher pension ages or much worse services. I'm actually getting sick of people whining about immigration now. To think we left the EU to "fix" this problem too. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    This mantra about a "chronic labour shortage" is just the inverse of the lump of labour fallacy. We could easily have managed without the mass immigration of the last 25 years, and it's highly debatable whether there has been any per-capita benefit as a result of it.
    That's nonsense. What matters is the dependency ratio - the share of non workers to working age people. When it's too high, you have too few workers and you find firms desperate to bring in people. And that works because immigrants are disproportionately of working age. You're seeing exactly the same pressures to bring in people everywhere this demographic problem is playing out. People need to stop whining about immigration and come up with solutions that will actually work, like significantly raising the pension age.
    “In the year to September, 143,990 foreign health and care workers brought 173,896 dependants with them"
    • 143990+173896=317886
    • Capacity of a BA Airbus-A380: 469
    • 317886/469=678 ish
    • So that's 678 Airbuses in nine months
    • 678/9*12= 904 Airbuses per year
    • 904/52= 17 Airbuses per week, or 5 Airbuses A380s every two days
    So we are importing 5 Airbuses every two days full of care workers and their families

    or
    • 143990+173896=317886
    • 317886/9*12= 423848 people per year
    So we are importing 423,848 people per year, including their dependants, to work in the health and care sectors

    And that doesn't include the nine squillion people we are importing to do courses.

    I know @rcs1000 had a good video in favor of mass immigration to solve problems. But this really is rather a lot of people.
    It is a lot of people. Our option are:

    1. pay a lot, lot more for health and care via taxes to encourage domestic workers to take those jobs
    2. accept a lot of the poorest won't get good health or care services
    3. import a lot of people to help
    4. a mix of the above
    5. pretend to not import a lot of people but actually do and then get angry about it
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,213
    ...
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie


    Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life


    The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat

    On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat

    We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry

    When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.

    The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.

    It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.

    Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
    Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government

    That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
    Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
    The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.

    The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
    Hey LG

    Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
    The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
    Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.

    The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
    It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.

    There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
  • Question to @leon et al:

    If this bill isn't hard enough, but our supposed partners we're sending the forrin to say they won't comply, where does that leave the small-dicked hard right?

    Hard (ho hum) to say that Starmer / leftie lawyers / the courts are blocking their Rwanda plan when Rwanda says it won't do it.

    Shockingly enough, the UK doesn't get to dictate to foreigners what they should do...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    Leon said:

    I think Sunak will pack the Lords to get the Rwanda legislation through. There is a total madness infecting the Conservative party currently. They are hellbent on this.

    The King wouldn't agree, see the People's Budget saga and King George V.

    Assuming the crossbenchers voted against the government, Sunak would need to appoint just over 250 peers.
    Correct. George V demanded a second general election to test public opinion before agreeing to create the extra peers if necessary to get the Budget / Parliament Act through.

    Helpfully, the Tories restored the king's prerogative to dissolve parliament on his own initiative, earlier this parliament.
    So Abolish the Monarchy too. And get rid of the Lords. And change the name of the country to Leonia
    The Lords can only delay legislation, including the Rwanda Bill, not block it and the King will sign any legislation Parliament has voted for
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    nico679 said:

    Carnyx said:

    nico679 said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1732459709548941803

    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    MPs now believe Robert Jenrick has resigned - I'm told Simon Clarke asked Rishi Sunak directly at the 1922 meeting if he had stepped down and the PM did not deny it

    Good riddance . The loathsome creature can go back to killing kittens and demanding the removal of anything that puts a smile on the face of a child migrant .
    Kittens? What on earth has he done?
    Have you been on Mars .
    No, just busy. I know about the murals but the felines would really kill it for him with the Tory demographic. Has he been recommending DIY fur clothing for poor people who can't afford leccy?
  • So this is fun.

    The Home Secretary prefaces the "Beaches are Safe" bill with a statement that he can't say this is compatible with ECHR but the government are doing it anyway

    Rwanda issue a statement saying they're out if the bill breaches the ECHR

    Robert tooboringtobotherinsulting Jenrick resigns as Migration minister because the bill isn't tough enough

    Pass the popcorn.

    Calling the Putinists, which is the will of the peeps now? Jenrick or Sunaks version? How is this to be determined?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,510
    To think I first heard about the Guyana brouhaha on PB of all places. Just straight up territorial acquisitiveness is really back in fashion among dictators thesedays.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    Carnyx said:

    nico679 said:

    Carnyx said:

    nico679 said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1732459709548941803

    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    MPs now believe Robert Jenrick has resigned - I'm told Simon Clarke asked Rishi Sunak directly at the 1922 meeting if he had stepped down and the PM did not deny it

    Good riddance . The loathsome creature can go back to killing kittens and demanding the removal of anything that puts a smile on the face of a child migrant .
    Kittens? What on earth has he done?
    Have you been on Mars .
    No, just busy. I know about the murals but the felines would really kill it for him with the Tory demographic. Has he been recommending DIY fur clothing for poor people who can't afford leccy?
    I was being melodramatic! I don’t have proof yet that he’s a kitten killer !
  • Carnyx said:

    So this is fun.

    The Home Secretary prefaces the "Beaches are Safe" bill with a statement that he can't say this is compatible with ECHR but the government are doing it anyway

    Rwanda issue a statement saying they're out if the bill breaches the ECHR

    Robert tooboringtobotherinsulting Jenrick resigns as Migration minister because the bill isn't tough enough

    Pass the popcorn.

    Also wondering what happens to all that money spent on 0 migrants. Is there a refund clause?
    We will be in default of the agreement.

    Note that Cleverly flies to Kigali to sign a new agreement. Says "now we have new powers". The Rwandan co-signatory tells the media that there are no new powers and what is he on about.

    So this is a clear theme - the UK plan is too toxic for the Rwandan government.

    Surely some nice Tory backbencher can pass an amendment to the Beaches are Safe bill stating that the Rwandan government does not get to say no to the 17.4m who voted to send people to Rwanda who do these dirty foreigners think they are?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    edited December 2023
    nico679 said:

    Carnyx said:

    nico679 said:

    Carnyx said:

    nico679 said:

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1732459709548941803

    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    MPs now believe Robert Jenrick has resigned - I'm told Simon Clarke asked Rishi Sunak directly at the 1922 meeting if he had stepped down and the PM did not deny it

    Good riddance . The loathsome creature can go back to killing kittens and demanding the removal of anything that puts a smile on the face of a child migrant .
    Kittens? What on earth has he done?
    Have you been on Mars .
    No, just busy. I know about the murals but the felines would really kill it for him with the Tory demographic. Has he been recommending DIY fur clothing for poor people who can't afford leccy?
    I was being melodramatic! I don’t have proof yet that he’s a kitten killer !
    Ah, thanks. Metaphorical only, then.
This discussion has been closed.