"Two arrested in Hull funeral directors investigation"
"A man of 46 and woman of 23 were arrested on suspicion of prevention of a lawful and decent burial, fraud by false representation and fraud by abuse of position, Humberside Police said."
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
Indeed. It's true they probably need a huge gamble, but that comes with its own risks.
The other problem they have (ok, one of them), is that they are so obviously in a dire situation that any bold game will immediately look like a desperate gamble.
So trying to present as steady as she goes looks delusional, whereas trying to look bold looks desperate. Tough job.
The Tories are beyond the political event horizon now. They would need a mighty large assist from Starmer and Labour to survive now.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
What's the difference between a Conservative optimist and a Conservative pessimist?
A Conservative pessimist says, 'things are so bad they cannot possibly get any worse.'
A conservative optimist says 'they will, they really will.'
When Kaiser Bill was strutting his stuff in Old Berlin, his ministers used to tell him, "the situation is serious - but NOT hopeless".
While in Old Vienna, Kaiser Franz Josef was being informed by HIS ministers, "the situation is hopeless - but NOT serious".
Since many of them in their Scotch manifestations have bellowed incessantly about the waste of money of road signs in a dead language for the last few years that would make them look a tad hypocritical. Not that that would stop them.
Well here’s one English right winger that would HATE to see the disappearance of Scottish Gaelic
Whenever I (rarely) hear it in Scotland it’s spine tingling. A vision of the distant past somehow come to life
I’ve heard it a few times mainly in Skye or the outer Hebrides. The best was a tiny Kirk in Harris where they did that incredible a Capella line singing - all these old ladies nasally ululating. One of the most foreign and exotic things I’ve ever encountered - and it was in the UK!
Gaelic must be saved
There’s a good current film, Dùthchas, about the Gaelic diaspora and the tug on the heart that those leavers feel. Pretty negative about the future of Gaelic it has to be said. Dunno if more money is the answer except in giving Gaels a chance to work and live in their birthplace.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
I don’t think calling a referendum is gonna take the Tory vote DOWN from 18% or whatever. These last 18% are surely the diehards. The brexiteering pensioners and a few poshos worried about tax or woke or private school fees
But it MIGHT steal 5% from reform and mean the difference between actual death or a savage beating
They should do it, if they can. But I doubt they can practically force it through
Most polls have the Tories on 25 to 30%, Goodwin's polls always exaggerate Reform at Tory expense.
Though yes if the Tories did fall below 20% they also likely fall below 50 seats and Farage would probably take them over by the end of the next Parliament given Reform would be around 15% in that scenario
And the shortlist in the Hound group is….the Basenji, the Grand Basset, the petit Basset Griffon, the Miniature smooth and standard wire dachshunds, greyhound, the pharaoh, and Rhodesian ridgeback.
And the winner is….the Grand Basset. Runner up the Basenji
The New York Times has been forced in court to admit its hallowed “bestseller list” is complete bollocks. It is not based on objective sales data, it is a list of books the editors prefer. So they exclude conservative books
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
Sure. Wouldn’t argue with any of that
But imagine you’re a Tory MP. You are standing with your back to the wall and the firing squad is loading rifles. There is a modest chance that a pardon from the emperor might arrive in the last 5 minutes remaining but you’ve been hoping for that for an hour. And it hasn’t happened. You’re down to the last 5 minutes
However you have a large pink plastic dildo in your back pocket, decorated with the face of Olaf Scholz
Your other alternative is to whip out the dildo and throw it in the air distracting everyone as they fall about laughing giving you a chance to run away. The distraction won’t last long and you will surely be shot as you run but in that circumstance you will probably only be wounded
The big plastic Olaf Scholz dildo is the ECHR referendum. Ludicrous. Yet it might just work. And you have ZERO alternatives
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
This one though isn’t a mad gamble. once these truths about Labour are known, it will actually shift votes away from Labour won’t it?
Just judging by PB, so many posters have wanted something done about trans activists and pro Hamas activists bullying MP’s, and others who politely disagree with them, for a long while now. So flagging up tge affiliatiins between those groups and unions and politicians and political parties can help stop this bullying.
Since many of them in their Scotch manifestations have bellowed incessantly about the waste of money of road signs in a dead language for the last few years that would make them look a tad hypocritical. Not that that would stop them.
Well here’s one English right winger that would HATE to see the disappearance of Scottish Gaelic
Whenever I (rarely) hear it in Scotland it’s spine tingling. A vision of the distant past somehow come to life
I’ve heard it a few times mainly in Skye or the outer Hebrides. The best was a tiny Kirk in Harris where they did that incredible a Capella line singing - all these old ladies nasally ululating. One of the most foreign and exotic things I’ve ever encountered - and it was in the UK!
Gaelic must be saved
Aig Oilthigh Obar Dheathain, chaidh mi dhan Chomann Cheilteach agus dh'ionnsaich mi beagan Gàidhlig, bha seo mar bu trice airson 's gum b' urrainn dhomh na seann òrain a sheinn. 'S e cànan àlainn a th' innte, ach de na sia cànanan as urrainn dhomh a chleachdadh, tha i air aon den fheadhainn as duilghe, agus fiù 's an nàiseantach as cinntiche a' tighinn gu crìch a' leigeil seachad, mura h-eil iad air a' Ghàidhealtachd.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
What's the difference between a Conservative optimist and a Conservative pessimist?
A Conservative pessimist says, 'things are so bad they cannot possibly get any worse.'
A conservative optimist says 'they will, they really will.'
When Kaiser Bill was strutting his stuff in Old Berlin, his ministers used to tell him, "the situation is serious - but NOT hopeless".
While in Old Vienna, Kaiser Franz Josef was being informed by HIS ministers, "the situation is hopeless - but NOT serious".
Both lovers of the epaulette. You didn't go broke if you owned a gold braid factory in those days.
You must know that isn't true. The Wikipedia average has been very close to 25% since the beginning of November, with possibly a recent dip. So, at least as many polls would have the Tories below 25% as above.
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
I am pretty sure the 'ECHR referendum on the same day' plan would work to Labours advantage or could be gamed to. It is an indication of how desperate the tories are - they grasp at any idea.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
What's the difference between a Conservative optimist and a Conservative pessimist?
A Conservative pessimist says, 'things are so bad they cannot possibly get any worse.'
A conservative optimist says 'they will, they really will.'
When Kaiser Bill was strutting his stuff in Old Berlin, his ministers used to tell him, "the situation is serious - but NOT hopeless".
While in Old Vienna, Kaiser Franz Josef was being informed by HIS ministers, "the situation is hopeless - but NOT serious".
Both lovers of the epaulette. You didn't go broke if you owned a gold braid factory in those days.
I think society really went downhill when elites no longer dressed up like idiots with no sense of self awareness to the amusement of their social inferiors. Ours still do it from time to time but not sure for how much longer.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
Sure. Wouldn’t argue with any of that
But imagine you’re a Tory MP. You are standing with your back to the wall and the firing squad is loading rifles. There is a modest chance that a pardon from the emperor might arrive in the last 5 minutes remaining but you’ve been hoping for that for an hour. And it hasn’t happened. You’re down to the last 5 minutes
However you have a large pink plastic dildo in your back pocket, decorated with the face of Olaf Scholz
Your other alternative is to whip out the dildo and throw it in the air distracting everyone as they fall about laughing giving you a chance to run away. The distraction won’t last long and you will surely be shot as you run but in that circumstance you will probably only be wounded
The big plastic Olaf Scholz dildo is the ECHR referendum. Ludicrous. Yet it might just work. And you have ZERO alternatives
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
I think we'll get the exit poll from Portugal about 8pm.
I expect the Democratic Alliance to top the poll with the Socialists well back in second and a strong showing from Chega. Alliance leader Montenegro has said he won't form a Government with Chega so I suspect it will be one of those situations where the populist party is in Government but isn't.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
They're not going to think that, because it's never going to happen.
More migrants have been sent to the Isles of Scilly than Rwanda.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Since many of them in their Scotch manifestations have bellowed incessantly about the waste of money of road signs in a dead language for the last few years that would make them look a tad hypocritical. Not that that would stop them.
Well here’s one English right winger that would HATE to see the disappearance of Scottish Gaelic
Whenever I (rarely) hear it in Scotland it’s spine tingling. A vision of the distant past somehow come to life
I’ve heard it a few times mainly in Skye or the outer Hebrides. The best was a tiny Kirk in Harris where they did that incredible a Capella line singing - all these old ladies nasally ululating. One of the most foreign and exotic things I’ve ever encountered - and it was in the UK!
Gaelic must be saved
There’s a good current film, Dùthchas, about the Gaelic diaspora and the tug on the heart that those leavers feel. Pretty negative about the future of Gaelic it has to be said. Dunno if more money is the answer except in giving Gaels a chance to work and live in their birthplace.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
On the subject of the housing predicament in London - I spent time with some friends (brothers) recently who are both earning around £30-£40k and living in London. They are hitting their early 40's and still in houseshares, so living the same life as when I knew them 20 years ago. Their parents are artists and have lived in London for their entire life owning a large townhouse which, whilst in a state of being run down, is worth well over a million, plus several other properties that they have gained through inheritance around the country. However they appear not to have made any effort at all to help their sons get a stable long term housing situation. I am not sure any of them understand about mortgages and interest rates, but I think if my friend is going to buy a flat, it has to be now, on a 25 year mortgage. I guess they will be ok in the end and their situation is better than most but as an outsider looking in it seems infuriating.
Looking up the last GE not held on a Thursday, which was 1931, the Tories received an absolute majority of votes cast and 470 of 615 seats. So clearly the omens are good and the Tories should set a vote for the earliest Tuesday they can manage.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
If you think people who risk death are going to be deterred by a small percentage chance of being sent to Rwanda...
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Looking up the last GE not held on a Thursday, which was 1931, the Tories received an absolute majority of votes cast and 470 of 615 seats. So clearly the omens are good and the Tories should set a vote for the earliest Tuesday they can manage.
And Labour were led by a Tory with a red rosette as well, which we're always being told by our absolutely not an anti-Semite is what Keir Starmer is.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Maths.
... and yours is?
I'm not confident that any planes will leave the ground. My point was that if they did, it wouldn't take long for the policy to prove effective. I'd say an initial 1000 in quick succession would be enough to slow boat crossings to a dribble of the insane.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
If you think people who risk death are going to be deterred by a small percentage chance of being sent to Rwanda...
I'm really rather perturbed that you think there is a small percentage chance of them being sent to Rwanda.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
This one though isn’t a mad gamble. once these truths about Labour are known, it will actually shift votes away from Labour won’t it?
Just judging by PB, so many posters have wanted something done about trans activists and pro Hamas activists bullying MP’s, and others who politely disagree with them, for a long while now. So flagging up tge affiliatiins between those groups and unions and politicians and political parties can help stop this bullying.
That is not how it will seem though is it?
It will be the Tories continuing to "bang on" about Europe at a time when most people think that the result of the previous referendum was a massive mistake. Following Peter Hitchens or some Daily Mail fuckwittery will only accelerate the collapse. The fact that Ms. Patel or Badenoch will doubtless be seeking to double or triple down does not mean that the electorate or even the Tory Party will follow.
Remember this is the faction of the Tories that wanted to prosecute the RNLI for rescuing people making the small boat crossing of the channel. It may look logical to the demented loons, but is exactly the stuff that totally turns off the punters.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
There is a reason lots of liberal democratic countries are considering “versions” of Rwanda - it’s because it would probably work (as it worked for Australia)
The problem is the Tories don’t have the cullions or the brains or the ruthlessness to do it properly - as we see. And doing it properly means a large percentage of all arrivals must be immediately sent to Rwanda, such that it become a serious deterrent
What is that percentage? Dunno. No one knows. We can guess
My guess is at least 10% would be needed and probably 30%+
Would you cross the channel in a dinghy if you honestly thought there was a 1 in 3 chance you would instead end up in central Africa?
No, you wouldn’t: the deterrent would succeed and crossings would cease
But it is all irrelevant now, the Tories are too pathetic to send a single migrant anywhere
Looking up the last GE not held on a Thursday, which was 1931, the Tories received an absolute majority of votes cast and 470 of 615 seats. So clearly the omens are good and the Tories should set a vote for the earliest Tuesday they can manage.
Absolutely. I’m on to something again. 😇
However, wasn’t 1931 not a Tory win but National win, the Prime Minister being Labour person?
I still prefer the Sat Sun voting, count on Sunday night. Have we ever done that in this country? Though if you go back much further than 1931 it won’t count anyway as women couldn’t vote.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
This one though isn’t a mad gamble. once these truths about Labour are known, it will actually shift votes away from Labour won’t it?
Just judging by PB, so many posters have wanted something done about trans activists and pro Hamas activists bullying MP’s, and others who politely disagree with them, for a long while now. So flagging up tge affiliatiins between those groups and unions and politicians and political parties can help stop this bullying.
That is not how it will seem though is it?
It will be the Tories continuing to "bang on" about Europe at a time when most people think that the result of the previous referendum was a massive mistake. Following Peter Hitchens or some Daily Mail fuckwittery will only accelerate the collapse. The fact that Ms. Patel or Badenoch will doubtless be seeking to double or triple down does not mean that the electorate or even the Tory Party will follow.
Remember this is the faction of the Tories that wanted to prosecute the RNLI for rescuing people making the small boat crossing of the channel. It may look logical to the demented loons, but is exactly the stuff that totally turns off the punters.
There's a strong possibility that a simultaneous ECHR referendum and GE would result in a vote to leave *and* a Labour landslide.
Looking up the last GE not held on a Thursday, which was 1931, the Tories received an absolute majority of votes cast and 470 of 615 seats. So clearly the omens are good and the Tories should set a vote for the earliest Tuesday they can manage.
However, wasn’t 1931 not a Tory win but National win, the Prime Minister being Labour person?
Technically, but it's pretty clear who was really running things.
Presumable PB pungent pundits are factoring into their psephological calculations, the machinations of extreme Cornish Nationalists seeking to establish their nightmarish dream (or visa versa) of a "Greater East Cornwall Co-Prosperity Sphere" from the banks of the Tamar to the Shepherds Bush Roundabout.
note for Lucky - there appears to be some difference on opinion re: apostrophe or lack thereof re: SBR.
Will leave final adjudication to your arbitration in your role of PB Punctuator-in-Chief.
On a serious note, if we wanted to mess with people on small boats, why did we not build a refugee camp in the Outer Hebrides? Most of the Barra Isles are uninhabited now. Ferry services are irregular. Small boat crossings not for the faint hearted and no use if you made it to Skye or the mainland anyway.
That would certainly make them think twice about coming.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Maths.
... and yours is?
I'm not confident that any planes will leave the ground. My point was that if they did, it wouldn't take long for the policy to prove effective. I'd say an initial 1000 in quick succession would be enough to slow boat crossings to a dribble of the insane.
People who willing to risk their lives crossing the channel in a small inflatable will pay zero attention to the prospect of being flown to Rwanda. Their actions are not guided by logic or risk.
On a serious note, if we wanted to mess with people on small boats, why did we not build a refugee camp in the Outer Hebrides? Most of the Barra Isles are uninhabited now. Ferry services are irregular. Small boat crossings not for the faint hearted and no use if you made it to Skye or the mainland anyway.
That would certainly make them think twice about coming.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
This one though isn’t a mad gamble. once these truths about Labour are known, it will actually shift votes away from Labour won’t it?
Just judging by PB, so many posters have wanted something done about trans activists and pro Hamas activists bullying MP’s, and others who politely disagree with them, for a long while now. So flagging up tge affiliatiins between those groups and unions and politicians and political parties can help stop this bullying.
It's not "bullying" - it's campaigns of intimidation and violence. We are taking extreme racist and misogynistic threats. Which have, on occasion escalated to murder.
What we need to do, instead of having new laws, is to use the existing laws to prosecute 100% of the threateners. Much as the US Secret Service does in the US.
On the subject of the housing predicament in London - I spent time with some friends (brothers) recently who are both earning around £30-£40k and living in London. They are hitting their early 40's and still in houseshares, so living the same life as when I knew them 20 years ago. Their parents are artists and have lived in London for their entire life owning a large townhouse which, whilst in a state of being run down, is worth well over a million, plus several other properties that they have gained through inheritance around the country. However they appear not to have made any effort at all to help their sons get a stable long term housing situation. I am not sure any of them understand about mortgages and interest rates, but I think if my friend is going to buy a flat, it has to be now, on a 25 year mortgage. I guess they will be ok in the end and their situation is better than most but as an outsider looking in it seems infuriating.
When their parents die they can inherit enough to buy outright a house mortgage free, so why bother with a mortgage now they may as well just keep house sharing and cheaper rent
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
Sure. Wouldn’t argue with any of that
But imagine you’re a Tory MP. You are standing with your back to the wall and the firing squad is loading rifles. There is a modest chance that a pardon from the emperor might arrive in the last 5 minutes remaining but you’ve been hoping for that for an hour. And it hasn’t happened. You’re down to the last 5 minutes
However you have a large pink plastic dildo in your back pocket, decorated with the face of Olaf Scholz
Your other alternative is to whip out the dildo and throw it in the air distracting everyone as they fall about laughing giving you a chance to run away. The distraction won’t last long and you will surely be shot as you run but in that circumstance you will probably only be wounded
The big plastic Olaf Scholz dildo is the ECHR referendum. Ludicrous. Yet it might just work. And you have ZERO alternatives
I am not sure that waving an Olaf Schultz shaped dildo is quite the look that a serious party of government should be going for, and indeed, as you say it is not really a serious policy, but then neither is Rwanda, so it might even happen.
Yet it is just as likely that the punters laugh at you, not with you and become even more determined to insert said dildo in every single orifice before the mercy killing that follows.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Maths.
... and yours is?
I'm not confident that any planes will leave the ground. My point was that if they did, it wouldn't take long for the policy to prove effective. I'd say an initial 1000 in quick succession would be enough to slow boat crossings to a dribble of the insane.
People who willing to risk their lives crossing the channel in a small inflatable will pay zero attention to the prospect of being flown to Rwanda. Their actions are not guided by logic or risk.
Yes they are. We know this because this precise policy worked in Australia
Australia was “lucky” that it had an unpleasant but safe island to send them to. We don’t, hence ideas like “Rwanda”
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
Sure. Wouldn’t argue with any of that
But imagine you’re a Tory MP. You are standing with your back to the wall and the firing squad is loading rifles. There is a modest chance that a pardon from the emperor might arrive in the last 5 minutes remaining but you’ve been hoping for that for an hour. And it hasn’t happened. You’re down to the last 5 minutes
However you have a large pink plastic dildo in your back pocket, decorated with the face of Olaf Scholz
Your other alternative is to whip out the dildo and throw it in the air distracting everyone as they fall about laughing giving you a chance to run away. The distraction won’t last long and you will surely be shot as you run but in that circumstance you will probably only be wounded
The big plastic Olaf Scholz dildo is the ECHR referendum. Ludicrous. Yet it might just work. And you have ZERO alternatives
Alternatives include 1. Write it into the manifesto and say c'mon, British people, tell the judges and lords where to get off; 2. Legislate to do it now and start the deportations before the election.
The problem with 2 isn't the judges - it's the HoL. But...they only need some deportations. They could find three rapists or something.
The most ludicrous thing about the referendum on election day idea, even more ludicrous than the possibility of the Sod's Law outcome of winning the referendum while losing the election, is the Boris ingredient. Boris Johnson is simply not going to lead a referendum campaign concurrent with the election campaign. There are limits. Everyone knows his attitude to the population is to stick two fingers up at them when they're not looking. He hasn't got sufficient credit left. He's busted. Labour would say with some reason and a lot of credibility that if you vote Rishi you'll get Boris.
At least the Electoral Commission supposedly needing nine months to decide on where to place a comma won't be a problem. A fine example of process talk aka jobsworthery - worthless in an atmosphere of crisis. So the plan is technically doable.
But everything changes once Sunak is gone and Penny calls the election for 2 May. Whether anyone's sent to Rwanda before then won't be a big issue. It will be vote Tory to get a large mass of people sent to Rwanda after the election - and many voters in the "Red Wall" will lap it up. Labour won't be able to say "Don't vote Tory - what a bunch of windbags - they promised to deport people and they haven't managed to do it." Nobody votes Labour because they think Labour are tougher on immigration.
I think we'll get the exit poll from Portugal about 8pm.
I expect the Democratic Alliance to top the poll with the Socialists well back in second and a strong showing from Chega. Alliance leader Montenegro has said he won't form a Government with Chega so I suspect it will be one of those situations where the populist party is in Government but isn't.
Have been in Madeira last week and parties campaigning with banners and loud music
Presumable PB pungent pundits are factoring into their psephological calculations, the machinations of extreme Cornish Nationalists seeking to establish their nightmarish dream (or visa versa) of a "Greater East Cornwall Co-Prosperity Sphere" from the banks of the Tamar to the Shepherds Bush Roundabout.
note for Lucky - there appears to be some difference on opinion re: apostrophe or lack thereof re: SBR.
Will leave final adjudication to your arbitration in your role of PB Punctuator-in-Chief.
Several shepherds, possessing one bush. I vote we stick that sucker at the end.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
What's the difference between a Conservative optimist and a Conservative pessimist?
A Conservative pessimist says, 'things are so bad they cannot possibly get any worse.'
A conservative optimist says 'they will, they really will.'
When Kaiser Bill was strutting his stuff in Old Berlin, his ministers used to tell him, "the situation is serious - but NOT hopeless".
While in Old Vienna, Kaiser Franz Josef was being informed by HIS ministers, "the situation is hopeless - but NOT serious".
Franz Josef died in 1916, his son Charles was last Emperor and exiled by the allies to Madeira where he is buried in Monte church. Lots of Austrian flags by his tomb from nationalists and monarchists. John Paul II also beatified him
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Maths.
... and yours is?
I'm not confident that any planes will leave the ground. My point was that if they did, it wouldn't take long for the policy to prove effective. I'd say an initial 1000 in quick succession would be enough to slow boat crossings to a dribble of the insane.
From the House of Commons research briefing on the subject:
Announcing the policy in April 2022, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said “Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead”. The then Deputy Prime Minister later said that the number of people relocated to Rwanda each year was more likely to be in the hundreds. This corresponds with reported indications from the Rwandan Government that it can process 1,000 people over five years. The Home Office has said that Rwanda has initial capacity for 200 people but plans to increase that once flights begin.
To take an analogy that might appeal to you, it's a bit like skimping on spending for post-Brexit infrastructure. It's obvious that the government isn't serious about this.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
I don’t think calling a referendum is gonna take the Tory vote DOWN from 18% or whatever. These last 18% are surely the diehards. The brexiteering pensioners and a few poshos worried about tax or woke or private school fees
But it MIGHT steal 5% from reform and mean the difference between actual death or a savage beating
They should do it, if they can. But I doubt they can practically force it through
I don't think it is possible. It requires primary legislation, and it is not in the manifesto so the Lords can and I think will block it.
I suspect there would also be a novel legal and constitutional issue about mixing up general elections with linked issues and campaigns that might in themselves affect the vote, and I think even if passed it would be litigated, with an uncertain outcome.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Maths.
... and yours is?
I'm not confident that any planes will leave the ground. My point was that if they did, it wouldn't take long for the policy to prove effective. I'd say an initial 1000 in quick succession would be enough to slow boat crossings to a dribble of the insane.
People who willing to risk their lives crossing the channel in a small inflatable will pay zero attention to the prospect of being flown to Rwanda. Their actions are not guided by logic or risk.
Yes they are. We know this because this precise policy worked in Australia
Australia was “lucky” that it had an unpleasant but safe island to send them to. We don’t, hence ideas like “Rwanda”
But the concept is sound: it works
I don’t think it was precisely the same policy as Australia. I think Aussies just smashed up the engine of the little boat and warship towed and dumped them on an island known in native language as “land of unmerciful food and death”.
Did this really cost two million pound per migrant, like the English variation as you claim?
Admittedly the Aussie scheme I described, if I have it right, would certainly work if UK tried it in the channel. Though the French would likely object to being referred to as “land of unmerciful food and death”.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
Sure. Wouldn’t argue with any of that
But imagine you’re a Tory MP. You are standing with your back to the wall and the firing squad is loading rifles. There is a modest chance that a pardon from the emperor might arrive in the last 5 minutes remaining but you’ve been hoping for that for an hour. And it hasn’t happened. You’re down to the last 5 minutes
However you have a large pink plastic dildo in your back pocket, decorated with the face of Olaf Scholz
Your other alternative is to whip out the dildo and throw it in the air distracting everyone as they fall about laughing giving you a chance to run away. The distraction won’t last long and you will surely be shot as you run but in that circumstance you will probably only be wounded
The big plastic Olaf Scholz dildo is the ECHR referendum. Ludicrous. Yet it might just work. And you have ZERO alternatives
I am not sure that waving an Olaf Schultz shaped dildo is quite the look that a serious party of government should be going for, and indeed, as you say it is not really a serious policy, but then neither is Rwanda, so it might even happen.
Yet it is just as likely that the punters laugh at you, not with you and become even more determined to insert said dildo in every single orifice before the mercy killing that follows.
Yes. But you’re still dead at the end of it all
Whereas the Olaf Scholz Dildo Trick MIGHT save your life
Looking up the last GE not held on a Thursday, which was 1931, the Tories received an absolute majority of votes cast and 470 of 615 seats. So clearly the omens are good and the Tories should set a vote for the earliest Tuesday they can manage.
Absolutely. I’m on to something again. 😇
However, wasn’t 1931 not a Tory win but National win, the Prime Minister being Labour person?
I still prefer the Sat Sun voting, count on Sunday night. Have we ever done that in this country? Though if you go back much further than 1931 it won’t count anyway as women couldn’t vote.
Former Labour leader and first Labour PM Ramsey Macdonald, was expelled by Labour Party before 1931 general election. In which he ran for re-election as MP for Seaham under banner of National Labour, and was opposed by Labour candidate.
National Labour elected (with considerable assist from Tories) grand total of 15 MPs including Ramsey AND Malcolm Macdonald. A wretched rump EXCEPT for fact that about half of the NatLab caucuse ended in the government (as did both Macdonalds) or received other preferment.
BTW, the Liberals were divided FOUR ways: Liberal (Asquithian), Liberal (Lloyd-Georgian), National Liberals AND Liberal Nationals.
You must know that isn't true. The Wikipedia average has been very close to 25% since the beginning of November, with possibly a recent dip. So, at least as many polls would have the Tories below 25% as above.
The Tories can survive a 25% poll average under FPTP, still gives them 100 to 150 seats.
Only below 20% do they face extinction, less than 50 seats and a likely Reform takeover of them within a decade
Since many of them in their Scotch manifestations have bellowed incessantly about the waste of money of road signs in a dead language for the last few years that would make them look a tad hypocritical. Not that that would stop them.
Well here’s one English right winger that would HATE to see the disappearance of Scottish Gaelic
Whenever I (rarely) hear it in Scotland it’s spine tingling. A vision of the distant past somehow come to life
I’ve heard it a few times mainly in Skye or the outer Hebrides. The best was a tiny Kirk in Harris where they did that incredible a Capella line singing - all these old ladies nasally ululating. One of the most foreign and exotic things I’ve ever encountered - and it was in the UK!
Gaelic must be saved
Aig Oilthigh Obar Dheathain, chaidh mi dhan Chomann Cheilteach agus dh'ionnsaich mi beagan Gàidhlig, bha seo mar bu trice airson 's gum b' urrainn dhomh na seann òrain a sheinn. 'S e cànan àlainn a th' innte, ach de na sia cànanan as urrainn dhomh a chleachdadh, tha i air aon den fheadhainn as duilghe, agus fiù 's an nàiseantach as cinntiche a' tighinn gu crìch a' leigeil seachad, mura h-eil iad air a' Ghàidhealtachd.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
I don’t think calling a referendum is gonna take the Tory vote DOWN from 18% or whatever. These last 18% are surely the diehards. The brexiteering pensioners and a few poshos worried about tax or woke or private school fees
But it MIGHT steal 5% from reform and mean the difference between actual death or a savage beating
They should do it, if they can. But I doubt they can practically force it through
I don't think it is possible. It requires primary legislation, and it is not in the manifesto so the Lords can and I think will block it.
I suspect there would also be a novel legal and constitutional issue about mixing up general elections with linked issues and campaigns that might in themselves affect the vote, and I think even if passed it would be litigated, with an uncertain outcome.
Yes I agree. Can’t see it happening
My point is more hypothetical - if they could do something like this, they should - their situation really IS that bad
As I’ve said. The Tories are facing the Fentanyl Election. The best result is they end up a gibbering zombie puking on their own shoes
I am pretty sure the 'ECHR referendum on the same day' plan would work to Labours advantage or could be gamed to. It is an indication of how desperate the tories are - they grasp at any idea.
As others have pointed out, it will never get through the lords though. They could put it in their manifesto I suppose. It *could* shift a few Reform voted to the Tories.
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Maths.
... and yours is?
I'm not confident that any planes will leave the ground. My point was that if they did, it wouldn't take long for the policy to prove effective. I'd say an initial 1000 in quick succession would be enough to slow boat crossings to a dribble of the insane.
From the House of Commons research briefing on the subject:
Announcing the policy in April 2022, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said “Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead”. The then Deputy Prime Minister later said that the number of people relocated to Rwanda each year was more likely to be in the hundreds. This corresponds with reported indications from the Rwandan Government that it can process 1,000 people over five years. The Home Office has said that Rwanda has initial capacity for 200 people but plans to increase that once flights begin.
To take an analogy that might appeal to you, it's a bit like skimping on spending for post-Brexit infrastructure. It's obvious that the government isn't serious about this.
Rwanda houses thousands of asylum seekers from several countries, and I think in the event it would be scalable if the policy were ever enacted.
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card." It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
When I cast my vote here in the Tory shires my first concern is always which nobody is running London at the moment.
I jest, but I did once see pro-SNP graffiti in Wiltshire.
As for cards, they probably have some but they are not playing cards, more like dinosaur top trumps
For those too young to remember the 1997 election, hopefully this year will be your chance to experience the same joy as us old farts did back when we knew that things could only get better.
And of course, we will then get the buzz for a second time.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
I don’t think calling a referendum is gonna take the Tory vote DOWN from 18% or whatever. These last 18% are surely the diehards. The brexiteering pensioners and a few poshos worried about tax or woke or private school fees
But it MIGHT steal 5% from reform and mean the difference between actual death or a savage beating
They should do it, if they can. But I doubt they can practically force it through
I don't think it is possible. It requires primary legislation, and it is not in the manifesto so the Lords can and I think will block it.
I suspect there would also be a novel legal and constitutional issue about mixing up general elections with linked issues and campaigns that might in themselves affect the vote, and I think even if passed it would be litigated, with an uncertain outcome.
Yes I agree. Can’t see it happening
My point is more hypothetical - if they could do something like this, they should - their situation really IS that bad
As I’ve said. The Tories are facing the Fentanyl Election. The best result is they end up a gibbering zombie puking on their own shoes
Worst case: coma and possible death
You seem to have your 'best result' and 'worst case' the wrong way round there.
On the subject of the housing predicament in London - I spent time with some friends (brothers) recently who are both earning around £30-£40k and living in London. They are hitting their early 40's and still in houseshares, so living the same life as when I knew them 20 years ago. Their parents are artists and have lived in London for their entire life owning a large townhouse which, whilst in a state of being run down, is worth well over a million, plus several other properties that they have gained through inheritance around the country. However they appear not to have made any effort at all to help their sons get a stable long term housing situation. I am not sure any of them understand about mortgages and interest rates, but I think if my friend is going to buy a flat, it has to be now, on a 25 year mortgage. I guess they will be ok in the end and their situation is better than most but as an outsider looking in it seems infuriating.
When their parents die they can inherit enough to buy outright a house mortgage free, so why bother with a mortgage now they may as well just keep house sharing and cheaper rent
This reminds me of a vulture sitting on a tree above a dying man.
Presumable PB pungent pundits are factoring into their psephological calculations, the machinations of extreme Cornish Nationalists seeking to establish their nightmarish dream (or visa versa) of a "Greater East Cornwall Co-Prosperity Sphere" from the banks of the Tamar to the Shepherds Bush Roundabout.
note for Lucky - there appears to be some difference on opinion re: apostrophe or lack thereof re: SBR.
Will leave final adjudication to your arbitration in your role of PB Punctuator-in-Chief.
Several shepherds, possessing one bush. I vote we stick that sucker at the end.
And the shortlist in the Hound group is….the Basenji, the Grand Basset, the petit Basset Griffon, the Miniature smooth and standard wire dachshunds, greyhound, the pharaoh, and Rhodesian ridgeback.
And the winner is….the Grand Basset. Runner up the Basenji
No Gigantic Hounds?
Dr. Mortimer looked strangely at us for an instant, and his voice sank almost to a whisper as he answered.
"Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound!"
I confess at these words a shudder passed through me. There was a thrill in the doctor's voice which showed that he was himself deeply moved by that which he told us. Holmes leaned forward in his excitement and his eyes had the hard, dry glitter which shot from them when he was keenly interested.
For those too young to remember the 1997 election, hopefully this year will be your chance to experience the same joy as us old farts did back when we knew that things could only get better.
And of course, we will then get the buzz for a second time.
I hope.
No, you won’t
The country is too fucked for that haze of optimistic elation a la 1997. And Starmer is not Blair
It will be more like a painful puking after way too much vodka. Some fairly instant relief as the poison is purged - but you’ve still got the hangover to come
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
They do.
Middle of next month: here is the national news...
First item: British-level election news: Tories ranting on about immigration and invasion; Labour saying yes there is a problem but the Tories haven't solved it, and we're the only party that has a workable humane plan, etc.
Second item: Sadiq Khan behind banner written in Urdu - news from the mayoral campaign in our capital city today. Cut to Starmer and Khan on the same platform.
How does that play in the Red Wall?
London is seen as way too multicultural by many voters living in faroff yokel or eckythump places that constitute most of the rest of the country. I don't share that view. Just commenting on it. Ceteris paribus it would be a plus for the Tories to hold the GE on the same day as the London mayoral.
For those too young to remember the 1997 election, hopefully this year will be your chance to experience the same joy as us old farts did back when we knew that things could only get better.
And of course, we will then get the buzz for a second time.
I hope.
No, you won’t
The country is too fucked for that haze of optimistic elation a la 1997. And Starmer is not Blair
It will be more like a painful puking after way too much vodka. Some fairly instant relief as the poison is purged - but you’ve still got the hangover to come
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
This one though isn’t a mad gamble. once these truths about Labour are known, it will actually shift votes away from Labour won’t it?
Just judging by PB, so many posters have wanted something done about trans activists and pro Hamas activists bullying MP’s, and others who politely disagree with them, for a long while now. So flagging up tge affiliatiins between those groups and unions and politicians and political parties can help stop this bullying.
That is not how it will seem though is it?
It will be the Tories continuing to "bang on" about Europe at a time when most people think that the result of the previous referendum was a massive mistake. Following Peter Hitchens or some Daily Mail fuckwittery will only accelerate the collapse. The fact that Ms. Patel or Badenoch will doubtless be seeking to double or triple down does not mean that the electorate or even the Tory Party will follow.
Remember this is the faction of the Tories that wanted to prosecute the RNLI for rescuing people making the small boat crossing of the channel. It may look logical to the demented loons, but is exactly the stuff that totally turns off the punters.
Hear what you're sayin'.
However, one major consideration for Tories may well be, finding some way of boosting Tory turnout for next GE. In environment where it appears many former CUP voters are strongly considering joining the Issak Walton League on Election Day.
Many folks now telling pollsters they plan to defect to Reform, may well swing back to the Blue Meanies when the deal (finally) goes down.
But plenty of other past and potential Tory voters are thinking about abstaining from voting. So in theory, a turnout-builder referendum might encourage enough such voters to turn out to register opinion on the ref; and since their at the polling station anyway, percentage decide to vote for MP.
This tactic is well-known and oft-used in USA in states were statewide ballot measures are frequent.
For example, this year in WA State, Republicans filed, funded and qualified several statewide initiatives, not just because they support repealing state carbon tax & etc., but also - or rather mostly - as a way of turning out conservative/Republican voters in a state where Donald Trump is NOT expected to win in 2024. (No GOPer has carried WA for POTUS since Reagan in 1984; none elected Gov since 1980.)
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
They do.
Middle of next month: here is the national news...
First item: British-level election news: Tories ranting on about immigration and invasion; Labour saying yes there is a problem but the Tories haven't solved it, and we're the only party that has a workable humane plan, etc.
Second item: Sadiq Khan behind banner written in Urdu - news from the mayoral campaign in our capital city today. Cut to Starmer and Khan on the same platform.
How does that play in the Red Wall?
London is seen as way too multicultural by many voters living in faroff yokel places that constitute most of the rest of the country. I don't share that view. Just commenting on it.
How it plays in the rest of the country is pretty irrelevant - national campaigns work, local campaigns sometimes work, but a not-national-or-local campaign based on pointing at Sadiq Khan? Not a chance.
It would look, and be, an obvious distraction from not having anything to say locally. Even those who agreed with the not liking him would not feel very compelled to vote against Labour locally for that reason.
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
They do.
Middle of next month: here is the national news...
First item: British-level election news: Tories ranting on about immigration and invasion; Labour saying yes there is a problem but the Tories haven't solved it, and we're the only party that has a workable humane plan, etc.
Second item: Sadiq Khan behind banner written in Urdu - news from the mayoral campaign in our capital city today. Cut to Starmer and Khan on the same platform.
How does that play in the Red Wall?
London is seen as way too multicultural by many voters living in faroff yokel places that constitute most of the rest of the country. I don't share that view. Just commenting on it. Ceteris paribus it would be a plus for the Tories to hold the GE on the same day as the London mayoral.
Nonsense.
Race baiting won't win it for our first British Asian PM.
On the subject of the housing predicament in London - I spent time with some friends (brothers) recently who are both earning around £30-£40k and living in London. They are hitting their early 40's and still in houseshares, so living the same life as when I knew them 20 years ago. Their parents are artists and have lived in London for their entire life owning a large townhouse which, whilst in a state of being run down, is worth well over a million, plus several other properties that they have gained through inheritance around the country. However they appear not to have made any effort at all to help their sons get a stable long term housing situation. I am not sure any of them understand about mortgages and interest rates, but I think if my friend is going to buy a flat, it has to be now, on a 25 year mortgage. I guess they will be ok in the end and their situation is better than most but as an outsider looking in it seems infuriating.
When their parents die they can inherit enough to buy outright a house mortgage free, so why bother with a mortgage now they may as well just keep house sharing and cheaper rent
Hopefully. Although a lot of people with wealth tied up in the house they live in will borrow against it to maintain their lifestyle in retirement (or their care requirements)
I don't think the Rwanda stuff matters any more, whatever happens. Everybody's bored rigid with it, even those in favour. So even if a few flights take off, I don't expect it to shift the dial. It's a sign of Sunak's hopelessness that he's invested so heavily in it.
The purpose of Rwanda was to be seen to have a muscular "plan" for illegal immigration and to allow them to taunt those opposed to the idea with "what would you do?" £200 million to an African despot with a carefully crafted PR image was an acceptable price for that narrative and political advantage. It worked as intended, as we saw from comments by some on this board.
Rwanda was never meant to solve anything, which suggests those proposing it weren't serious about implementation. But somehow the Sunak government ended up fully invested. A smarter politician would have quietly let the proposal lapse once the political goodness had been extracted from it. Rwanda is now just an albatross.
The problem is, as someone pointed out in a different context recently, accusation is confession. All the Tory taunting of Labour for not having an alternative plan to Rwanda, also showed that they didn't have an alternative plan to Rwanda. So how were they ever going to move on from it to some other way of dealing with the issue?
I hate to interrupt this glorious debate between two people who completely agree with each other, but Rwanda doesn't need to take people at the rate they're currently arriving in a sustained fashion, because the minute it starts taking people, they will stop arriving. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda. They're coming to the UK because they have a ludicrously high chance of making a successful asylum claim here vs. anywhere else in Europe. If that becomes a ludicrously high chance of getting sent to Rwanda, the flow stops.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
Keep taking the pills…
If you think people are going to be motivated to cross to the UK by dinghy if they're going to be sent to Rwanda for their efforts, perhaps you should seek out some stronger medication.
How many are you sending to Rwanda?
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
Maths.
... and yours is?
I'm not confident that any planes will leave the ground. My point was that if they did, it wouldn't take long for the policy to prove effective. I'd say an initial 1000 in quick succession would be enough to slow boat crossings to a dribble of the insane.
Indeed.
If the UK squares off the legal challenges and institutes a "you will be immediately sent to Rwanda, no questions ask, even if you have legitimate grounds for asylum, do not go to court, do not pass go, do not collect £200" policy then the crossings would drop to zero almost immediately.
Which of course has already happened, when Australia implemented this policy. Australia was seeing large numbers crossing and dying due to the crossings, then implemented this policy so everyone who crossed was immediately relocated elsewhere. At which point nobody crosses anymore.
The issue is actually getting to the point where the policy is happening, if that is the route you want to take. If it is, and you do, it will work that's not the problem, the problem is actually getting there.
Is it possible for the government to pay asylum seekers to waive their appeal rights and go to Rwanda? I am sure they could find some to do it.
Trouble is that doesn't work. "Have the option of £10k cash and a free flight to Rwanda" isn't necessarily a stong disincentive to come in the first place.
Rwanda would work. If we shipped 99.9% of arrivals there, no ifs, no buts, there would quite soon be virtually no arrivals. The problem is that, for good or ill, our political system isn't capable (at present) of making that happen. Even a 50% chance of Rwanda wouldn't be enough, they would still come and hope for a favourable spin of the dice.
Looks like the Jack Russell to win on polling. Beautiful little fellow.
That Australian Shepherd is magnificent though.
Yes, the seven finalists are in the ring, and the Jack is clearly the audience favourite. The Frenchie would be a *brave* choice given the negative publicity after its category win.
Next year the flat nosed dogs will need a breathing test before they can enter Crufts.
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
They do.
Middle of next month: here is the national news...
First item: British-level election news: Tories ranting on about immigration and invasion; Labour saying yes there is a problem but the Tories haven't solved it, and we're the only party that has a workable humane plan, etc.
Second item: Sadiq Khan behind banner written in Urdu - news from the mayoral campaign in our capital city today. Cut to Starmer and Khan on the same platform.
How does that play in the Red Wall?
London is seen as way too multicultural by many voters living in faroff yokel places that constitute most of the rest of the country. I don't share that view. Just commenting on it. Ceteris paribus it would be a plus for the Tories to hold the GE on the same day as the London mayoral.
Nonsense.
Race baiting won't win it for our first British Asian PM.
The race of the PM has nothing to do with it.
Race baiting won't work for any PM as this is not a racist country.
Looks like the Jack Russell to win on polling. Beautiful little fellow.
That Australian Shepherd is magnificent though.
Yes, the seven finalists are in the ring, and the Jack is clearly the audience favourite. The Frenchie would be a *brave* choice given the negative publicity after its category win.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Put like that, it's not a gamble, sure.
But "it cannot get worse" feels like a brave statement, if I might be so bold.
I don’t think calling a referendum is gonna take the Tory vote DOWN from 18% or whatever. These last 18% are surely the diehards. The brexiteering pensioners and a few poshos worried about tax or woke or private school fees
But it MIGHT steal 5% from reform and mean the difference between actual death or a savage beating
They should do it, if they can. But I doubt they can practically force it through
I don't think it is possible. It requires primary legislation, and it is not in the manifesto so the Lords can and I think will block it.
I suspect there would also be a novel legal and constitutional issue about mixing up general elections with linked issues and campaigns that might in themselves affect the vote, and I think even if passed it would be litigated, with an uncertain outcome.
Yes I agree. Can’t see it happening
My point is more hypothetical - if they could do something like this, they should - their situation really IS that bad
As I’ve said. The Tories are facing the Fentanyl Election. The best result is they end up a gibbering zombie puking on their own shoes
Worst case: coma and possible death
I don't agree. As a usually Tory voter I think, along with most other people, that in any circumstance another Tory government would be bad for the country and bad for politics.
So, what should the Tories do? They should set out in the 2024 GE a seriously worked 10 year programme for a One Nation Tory party to implement, with unvarnished honesty, dealing in detail with each one in turn of the truly awful issues and taking a clear line, (deficit, debt, growth, the EU, defence, NHS reform, tax, free speech, pensions, benefits, child care, social care, local government etc) and setting out clearly what the state should fund properly and what it should be out of.
Assuming it lost, which it should, it would have a sane measure by which to assess Labour, and a marker point for next time and a restored reputation for centrism. If, by some ill chance they won, they would have a programme for 10 years which only promised true things.
For those too young to remember the 1997 election, hopefully this year will be your chance to experience the same joy as us old farts did back when we knew that things could only get better.
And of course, we will then get the buzz for a second time.
I hope.
No, you won’t
The country is too fucked for that haze of optimistic elation a la 1997. And Starmer is not Blair
It will be more like a painful puking after way too much vodka. Some fairly instant relief as the poison is purged - but you’ve still got the hangover to come
Indeed, as I've said before. If the nation is lucky, we may be ready for some dry toast in about 2027. But Starmer's entire persona is pretty much spot on for "father of the nation who hopes we've learned to pace ourselves better in future and I'll just open the curtains a little bit whether you like it or not".
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
This one though isn’t a mad gamble. once these truths about Labour are known, it will actually shift votes away from Labour won’t it?
Just judging by PB, so many posters have wanted something done about trans activists and pro Hamas activists bullying MP’s, and others who politely disagree with them, for a long while now. So flagging up tge affiliatiins between those groups and unions and politicians and political parties can help stop this bullying.
Michael Howard, when he was Home Secretary, used to say that his job was to take all the mad proposals from various nutters and tip them into the bin. Then twenty years later one of the nutters became PM
The political process is the means whereby differing points of view can be reconciled. We do this by allowing those points of view to be aired via free speech and protest and the electorate decide between them. That way public consent can be obtained for action X, then when things change and the public changes we can adopt not-X instead. That's how civilisation works. Sunak's desire to ban things he doesn't like isn't a defense of British values, it's a betrayal of them.
As I keep saying, the Conservatives don't know how to run a free country. They just don't.
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
They do.
Middle of next month: here is the national news...
First item: British-level election news: Tories ranting on about immigration and invasion; Labour saying yes there is a problem but the Tories haven't solved it, and we're the only party that has a workable humane plan, etc.
Second item: Sadiq Khan behind banner written in Urdu - news from the mayoral campaign in our capital city today. Cut to Starmer and Khan on the same platform.
How does that play in the Red Wall?
London is seen as way too multicultural by many voters living in faroff yokel places that constitute most of the rest of the country. I don't share that view. Just commenting on it. Ceteris paribus it would be a plus for the Tories to hold the GE on the same day as the London mayoral.
Nonsense.
Race baiting won't win it for our first British Asian PM.
Such a simple pleasure yet so profound. You sit on the balcony and safely stare out at the world as it goes by. You are of the world but not in it. You can watch but you don’t have to take part
Mine overlooks a grimy square in the working class burb of Getsemani in historic Cartagena. But on the near horizon is the largest fortress in South America. Built after Francis Drake sacked the place
My ambition for my final days is to have a little place with a balcony in a benign climate. Or maybe a porch like in the Deep South
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
They do.
Middle of next month: here is the national news...
First item: British-level election news: Tories ranting on about immigration and invasion; Labour saying yes there is a problem but the Tories haven't solved it, and we're the only party that has a workable humane plan, etc.
Second item: Sadiq Khan behind banner written in Urdu - news from the mayoral campaign in our capital city today. Cut to Starmer and Khan on the same platform.
How does that play in the Red Wall?
London is seen as way too multicultural by many voters living in faroff yokel places that constitute most of the rest of the country. I don't share that view. Just commenting on it. Ceteris paribus it would be a plus for the Tories to hold the GE on the same day as the London mayoral.
Nonsense.
Race baiting won't win it for our first British Asian PM.
So they can 'own the libs' by delaying the GE until January. Is that what I'm hearing. Well that's fine if you don't have a problem with Ed Davey becoming Leader of the Opposition.
The latest wheeze is actually quite fun.
EXC: Tory MPs propose ‘Super Thursday’ plan - holding an ECHR Referendum on the same day as a General Election
Aimed to ‘square off’ threat from Reform and @Nigel_Farage
Could help bring in Reform voters, but alternatively could look so cynical and desperate that it gets everyone out to the polling stations to say fuck off. I’m not sure the average Reform voter cares that specifically about ECHR either. They might vote for withdrawal when asked but is that enough to switch their party vote?
56% to 32% in the latest polling, the UK electorate think Brexit was a mistake. An ECHR referendum, or Brexit 2 Brex Harder, would be a massive dud.
No it wouldn’t. Not if it persuaded many of those 32% to vote Tory. That would save the party from possible extinction
The Tories are at the edge of the abyss. Some polls put them under 20%. That’s absolute wipe out territory - from which they might never recover
The ECHR idea is a mad gamble but that’s what they need now. A mad gamble. They have nothing to lose, it cannot get worse
Another mad gamble? The problem the Tories have is that it is a series of mad gambles that have go them into this mess. The truth is that once you lose your reputation for probity and competence, the general level of scepticism rises to the point that every single one of your actions is questioned. Now the Tories have burned the Conservative brand to the point that the electorate is sick of the endless drama and constant instability.
So here we are, sick of the Tories but lumbered with them for much of the next year. By the end of it, it won´t be so much an electoral defeat, as series of punishment beatings.
Given how utterly godawful the next few months of splits and windbaggery is likely to be, it will seem like justifiable homicide to put the Tories out of our misery when the glorious election day finally dawns.
Sure. Wouldn’t argue with any of that
But imagine you’re a Tory MP. You are standing with your back to the wall and the firing squad is loading rifles. There is a modest chance that a pardon from the emperor might arrive in the last 5 minutes remaining but you’ve been hoping for that for an hour. And it hasn’t happened. You’re down to the last 5 minutes
However you have a large pink plastic dildo in your back pocket, decorated with the face of Olaf Scholz
Your other alternative is to whip out the dildo and throw it in the air distracting everyone as they fall about laughing giving you a chance to run away. The distraction won’t last long and you will surely be shot as you run but in that circumstance you will probably only be wounded
The big plastic Olaf Scholz dildo is the ECHR referendum. Ludicrous. Yet it might just work. And you have ZERO alternatives
If I were a Tory MP I would be trying to leverage myself into a good job so I could say I was standing down *before* the election.
Still 130 short of the 180+ Tory MPs they need to oust Sunak in a VONC
Both May and Johnson won their VONCs, but were gone within a couple of months as I recall.
Any VONC is career ending.
True. And see also the overthrow of IDS in 2003. Many Tory MPs were swearing blind he had their full support (including Michael Howard, if memory serves), but whaddayaknow, he lost the vote. That's what's likely to happen this time too. If there's a VONC, Sunak will get crushed in it. That's if he doesn't resign when the Old Lady visits him. The only issue that will be settled by whether it's 52 letters or a much higher number will be whether he even bothers staying on for the vote. Then Penny will call a GE for 2 May and the leftwing figure that the Tory campaign demonises the most won't be Keir Starmer or George Galloway - it will be Sadiq Khan. In short, they will play the London card. And they will probably keep their majority. I have placed stakes accordingly.
If ever there was a post that started well before rapidly spiralling into insanity, this is it.
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
They do.
Middle of next month: here is the national news...
First item: British-level election news: Tories ranting on about immigration and invasion; Labour saying yes there is a problem but the Tories haven't solved it, and we're the only party that has a workable humane plan, etc.
Second item: Sadiq Khan behind banner written in Urdu - news from the mayoral campaign in our capital city today. Cut to Starmer and Khan on the same platform.
How does that play in the Red Wall?
London is seen as way too multicultural by many voters living in faroff yokel or eckythump places that constitute most of the rest of the country. I don't share that view. Just commenting on it. Ceteris paribus it would be a plus for the Tories to hold the GE on the same day as the London mayoral.
That view is complete and utter bullshit. By someone who is either a troll, or looking down their nose from London and imagining what we "yokels" think.
You clearly haven't lived or worked in the Red Wall if that's what you think.
Voters here are far more concerned with their own bread and butter situations - the economy, the NHS, housing, bills, mortgages, petrol prices, the roads, schools, or whatever else bothers them than the Mayor of London which is frankly a non-issue here.
I am pretty sure the 'ECHR referendum on the same day' plan would work to Labours advantage or could be gamed to. It is an indication of how desperate the tories are - they grasp at any idea.
Indeed. Most voters will hear only "a referendum on pulling out of Europe." Well. The last one went swimmingly, didn't it?
Comments
That's not impossible, but it is unlikely.
Furthermore, when people are taken to Rwanda, they won't stay there; they will abscond. That means even more space.
While in Old Vienna, Kaiser Franz Josef was being informed by HIS ministers, "the situation is hopeless - but NOT serious".
https://www.taigh-chearsabhagh.org/events/duthchas-home-2/
Though yes if the Tories did fall below 20% they also likely fall below 50 seats and Farage would probably take them over by the end of the next Parliament given Reform would be around 15% in that scenario
But imagine you’re a Tory MP. You are standing with your back to the wall and the firing squad is loading rifles. There is a modest chance that a pardon from the emperor might arrive in the last 5 minutes remaining but you’ve been hoping for that for an hour. And it hasn’t happened. You’re down to the last 5 minutes
However you have a large pink plastic dildo in your back pocket, decorated with the face of Olaf Scholz
Your other alternative is to whip out the dildo and throw it in the air distracting everyone as they fall about laughing giving you a chance to run away. The distraction won’t last long and you will surely be shot as you run but in that circumstance you will probably only be wounded
The big plastic Olaf Scholz dildo is the ECHR referendum. Ludicrous. Yet it might just work. And you have ZERO alternatives
https://news.sky.com/story/groups-fear-they-will-be-caught-out-in-new-definition-of-extremism-13092141
Just judging by PB, so many posters have wanted something done about trans activists and pro Hamas activists bullying MP’s, and others who politely disagree with them, for a long while now. So flagging up tge affiliatiins between those groups and unions and politicians and political parties can help stop this bullying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K62sxZw-Qes
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Italian Job
What’s your math on the % chance of one of them actually getting sent to Rwanda, which would be the key element of any deterrent?
I expect the Democratic Alliance to top the poll with the Socialists well back in second and a strong showing from Chega. Alliance leader Montenegro has said he won't form a Government with Chega so I suspect it will be one of those situations where the populist party is in Government but isn't.
More migrants have been sent to the Isles of Scilly than Rwanda.
My daughter in law is learning it.
It will be the Tories continuing to "bang on" about Europe at a time when most people think that the result of the previous referendum was a massive mistake. Following Peter Hitchens or some Daily Mail fuckwittery will only accelerate the collapse. The fact that Ms. Patel or Badenoch will doubtless be seeking to double or triple down does not mean that the electorate or even the Tory Party will follow.
Remember this is the faction of the Tories that wanted to prosecute the RNLI for rescuing people making the small boat crossing of the channel. It may look logical to the demented loons, but is exactly the stuff that totally turns off the punters.
The problem is the Tories don’t have the cullions or the brains or the ruthlessness to do it properly - as we see. And doing it properly means a large percentage of all arrivals must be immediately sent to Rwanda, such that it become a serious deterrent
What is that percentage? Dunno. No one knows. We can guess
My guess is at least 10% would be needed and probably 30%+
Would you cross the channel in a dinghy if you honestly thought there was a 1 in 3 chance you would instead end up in central Africa?
No, you wouldn’t: the deterrent would succeed and crossings would cease
But it is all irrelevant now, the Tories are too pathetic to send a single migrant anywhere
However, wasn’t 1931 not a Tory win but National win, the Prime Minister being Labour person?
I still prefer the Sat Sun voting, count on Sunday night. Have we ever done that in this country? Though if you go back much further than 1931 it won’t count anyway as women couldn’t vote.
note for Lucky - there appears to be some difference on opinion re: apostrophe or lack thereof re: SBR.
Will leave final adjudication to your arbitration in your role of PB Punctuator-in-Chief.
That would certainly make them think twice about coming.
Crossings would cease overnight
What we need to do, instead of having new laws, is to use the existing laws to prosecute 100% of the threateners. Much as the US Secret Service does in the US.
Apparently, the police aren't keen on this.
Yet it is just as likely that the punters laugh at you, not with you and become even more determined to insert said dildo in every single orifice before the mercy killing that follows.
Australia was “lucky” that it had an unpleasant but safe island to send them to. We don’t, hence ideas like “Rwanda”
But the concept is sound: it works
1. Write it into the manifesto and say c'mon, British people, tell the judges and lords where to get off;
2. Legislate to do it now and start the deportations before the election.
The problem with 2 isn't the judges - it's the HoL. But...they only need some deportations. They could find three rapists or something.
The most ludicrous thing about the referendum on election day idea, even more ludicrous than the possibility of the Sod's Law outcome of winning the referendum while losing the election, is the Boris ingredient. Boris Johnson is simply not going to lead a referendum campaign concurrent with the election campaign. There are limits. Everyone knows his attitude to the population is to stick two fingers up at them when they're not looking. He hasn't got sufficient credit left. He's busted. Labour would say with some reason and a lot of credibility that if you vote Rishi you'll get Boris.
At least the Electoral Commission supposedly needing nine months to decide on where to place a comma won't be a problem. A fine example of process talk aka jobsworthery - worthless in an atmosphere of crisis. So the plan is technically doable.
But everything changes once Sunak is gone and Penny calls the election for 2 May. Whether anyone's sent to Rwanda before then won't be a big issue. It will be vote Tory to get a large mass of people sent to Rwanda after the election - and many voters in the "Red Wall" will lap it up. Labour won't be able to say "Don't vote Tory - what a bunch of windbags - they promised to deport people and they haven't managed to do it." Nobody votes Labour because they think Labour are tougher on immigration.
son Charles was last Emperor
and exiled by the allies to
Madeira where he is buried in
Monte church. Lots of
Austrian flags by his tomb
from nationalists and monarchists. John Paul II
also beatified him
Announcing the policy in April 2022, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said
“Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the
years ahead”.
The then Deputy Prime Minister later said that the number of people relocated
to Rwanda each year was more likely to be in the hundreds. This
corresponds with reported indications from the Rwandan Government that it
can process 1,000 people over five years.
The Home Office has said that Rwanda has initial capacity for 200 people but
plans to increase that once flights begin.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9568/CBP-9568.pdf
To take an analogy that might appeal to you, it's a bit like skimping on spending for post-Brexit infrastructure. It's obvious that the government isn't serious about this.
I suspect there would also be a novel legal and constitutional issue about mixing up general elections with linked issues and campaigns that might in themselves affect the vote, and I think even if passed it would be litigated, with an uncertain outcome.
Did this really cost two million pound per migrant, like the English variation as you claim?
Admittedly the Aussie scheme I described, if I have it right, would certainly work if UK tried it in the channel. Though the French would likely object to being referred to as “land of unmerciful food and death”.
Whereas the Olaf Scholz Dildo Trick MIGHT save your life
National Labour elected (with considerable assist from Tories) grand total of 15 MPs including Ramsey AND Malcolm Macdonald. A wretched rump EXCEPT for fact that about half of the NatLab caucuse ended in the government (as did both Macdonalds) or received other preferment.
BTW, the Liberals were divided FOUR ways: Liberal (Asquithian), Liberal (Lloyd-Georgian), National Liberals AND Liberal Nationals.
Of course the last referendum worked out so well ! The Tories pushing this ridiculous idea should be named and shamed and then sectioned !
Only below 20% do they face extinction, less than 50 seats and a likely Reform takeover of them within a decade
https://x.com/scotlit/status/1766820236106375658?s=20
My point is more hypothetical - if they could do something like this, they should - their situation really IS that bad
As I’ve said. The Tories are facing the Fentanyl Election. The best result is they end up a gibbering zombie puking on their own shoes
Worst case: coma and possible death
The Tories will "play the London card."? It's quite possible they don't have any cards but they certainly don't have a 'London card' to play.
I jest, but I did once see pro-SNP graffiti in Wiltshire.
As for cards, they probably have some but they are not playing cards, more like dinosaur top trumps
And of course, we will then get the buzz for a second time.
I hope.
But it doesn't feed the vulture meanwhile.
"Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound!"
I confess at these words a shudder passed through me. There was a thrill in the doctor's voice which showed that he was himself deeply moved by that which he told us. Holmes leaned forward in his excitement and his eyes had the hard, dry glitter which shot from them when he was keenly interested.
That Australian Shepherd is magnificent though.
The country is too fucked for that haze of optimistic elation a la 1997. And Starmer is not Blair
It will be more like a painful puking after way too much vodka. Some fairly instant relief as the poison is purged - but you’ve still got the hangover to come
Middle of next month: here is the national news...
First item: British-level election news: Tories ranting on about immigration and invasion; Labour saying yes there is a problem but the Tories haven't solved it, and we're the only party that has a workable humane plan, etc.
Second item: Sadiq Khan behind banner written in Urdu - news from the mayoral campaign in our capital city today. Cut to Starmer and Khan on the same platform.
How does that play in the Red Wall?
London is seen as way too multicultural by many voters living in faroff yokel or eckythump places that constitute most of the rest of the country. I don't share that view. Just commenting on it. Ceteris paribus it would be a plus for the Tories to hold the GE on the same day as the London mayoral.
However, one major consideration for Tories may well be, finding some way of boosting Tory turnout for next GE. In environment where it appears many former CUP voters are strongly considering joining the Issak Walton League on Election Day.
Many folks now telling pollsters they plan to defect to Reform, may well swing back to the Blue Meanies when the deal (finally) goes down.
But plenty of other past and potential Tory voters are thinking about abstaining from voting. So in theory, a turnout-builder referendum might encourage enough such voters to turn out to register opinion on the ref; and since their at the polling station anyway, percentage decide to vote for MP.
This tactic is well-known and oft-used in USA in states were statewide ballot measures are frequent.
For example, this year in WA State, Republicans filed, funded and qualified several statewide initiatives, not just because they support repealing state carbon tax & etc., but also - or rather mostly - as a way of turning out conservative/Republican voters in a state where Donald Trump is NOT expected to win in 2024. (No GOPer has carried WA for POTUS since Reagan in 1984; none elected Gov since 1980.)
It would look, and be, an obvious distraction from not having anything to say locally. Even those who agreed with the not liking him would not feel very compelled to vote against Labour locally for that reason.
Race baiting won't win it for our first British Asian PM.
If the UK squares off the legal challenges and institutes a "you will be immediately sent to Rwanda, no questions ask, even if you have legitimate grounds for asylum, do not go to court, do not pass go, do not collect £200" policy then the crossings would drop to zero almost immediately.
Which of course has already happened, when Australia implemented this policy. Australia was seeing large numbers crossing and dying due to the crossings, then implemented this policy so everyone who crossed was immediately relocated elsewhere. At which point nobody crosses anymore.
The issue is actually getting to the point where the policy is happening, if that is the route you want to take. If it is, and you do, it will work that's not the problem, the problem is actually getting there.
Rwanda would work. If we shipped 99.9% of arrivals there, no ifs, no buts, there would quite soon be virtually no arrivals. The problem is that, for good or ill, our political system isn't capable (at present) of making that happen. Even a 50% chance of Rwanda wouldn't be enough, they would still come and hope for a favourable spin of the dice.
Next year the flat nosed dogs will need a breathing test before they can enter Crufts.
Race baiting won't work for any PM as this is not a racist country.
Good!
I want the Aussie Shepherd.
So, what should the Tories do? They should set out in the 2024 GE a seriously worked 10 year programme for a One Nation Tory party to implement, with unvarnished honesty, dealing in detail with each one in turn of the truly awful issues and taking a clear line, (deficit, debt, growth, the EU, defence, NHS reform, tax, free speech, pensions, benefits, child care, social care, local government etc) and setting out clearly what the state should fund properly and what it should be out of.
Assuming it lost, which it should, it would have a sane measure by which to assess Labour, and a marker point for next time and a restored reputation for centrism. If, by some ill chance they won, they would have a programme for 10 years which only promised true things.
The political process is the means whereby differing points of view can be reconciled. We do this by allowing those points of view to be aired via free speech and protest and the electorate decide between them. That way public consent can be obtained for action X, then when things change and the public changes we can adopt not-X instead. That's how civilisation works. Sunak's desire to ban things he doesn't like isn't a defense of British values, it's a betrayal of them.
As I keep saying, the Conservatives don't know how to run a free country. They just don't.
Such a simple pleasure yet so profound. You sit on the balcony and safely stare out at the world as it goes by. You are of the world but not in it. You can watch but you don’t have to take part
Mine overlooks a grimy square in the working class burb of Getsemani in historic Cartagena. But on the near horizon is the largest fortress in South America. Built after Francis Drake sacked the place
My ambition for my final days is to have a little place with a balcony in a benign climate. Or maybe a porch like in the Deep South
You clearly haven't lived or worked in the Red Wall if that's what you think.
Voters here are far more concerned with their own bread and butter situations - the economy, the NHS, housing, bills, mortgages, petrol prices, the roads, schools, or whatever else bothers them than the Mayor of London which is frankly a non-issue here.
Most voters will hear only "a referendum on pulling out of Europe."
Well. The last one went swimmingly, didn't it?