What do we want and when do we want it – politicalbetting.com

...

Leon said:

Balconies are brilliant

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

Deep South? Isle of Wight.

Anyways. Just spent 2 hours on an 18 page application form to apply for a promotion.
Not sure why I need to outline in excruciating, microscopic detail what I do in my current role for the benefit of my current employer.

.

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

I don't think you can quite assume that.
There will be a small deterrent effect, I suspect. But hardly enough to justify the expense and political mess.

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Donkeys said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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.

Muslim baiting otoh..

Probably has a greater potential, but not so much as to work as a focus for an entire campaign.

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

bondegezou said:

TimS said:

Clutch_Brompton 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

https://x.com/avmikhailova/status/1766821828067045450?s=46

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.

I'd vote for it.

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

What a jolly picture you paint.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

It's part of the occasional, inconsistent attempts to paint Khan as some kind of political or religious extremist.

It never works - what Khan are they looking at?

Tell me he's crap, maybe that's true I'm not a Londoner, but extreme?

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

If they were guaranteed to be sent to Rwanda it absolutely would dissuade them, as it did when Australia implemented the policy and crossings stopped.

Why come here to be sent to Rwanda when you could instead go to any other European country and not be sent to Rwanda?

But it will only dissuade people if the policy is happening, but if it is, the crossings wouldn't slow they'd stop.

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

It's part of the occasional, inconsistent attempts to paint Khan as some kind of political or religious extremist.

It never works - what Khan are they looking at?

Tell me he's crap, maybe that's true I'm not a Londoner, but extreme?

Even if he is, its irrelevant. Its like debating the Mayor of New York.

Mayor of London has no power or relevance in our politics whatsoever. He's a nobody. People here are not looking at how much month they've got left at the end of their money and thinking "Mayor of London".

...

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Wow, £4k per month! Have you applied a 35% discount code, and could you pass it on to me please?

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

If they were guaranteed to be sent to Rwanda it absolutely would dissuade them, as it did when Australia implemented the policy and crossings stopped.

Why come here to be sent to Rwanda when you could instead go to any other European country and not be sent to Rwanda?

But it will only dissuade people if the policy is happening, but if it is, the crossings wouldn't slow they'd stop.

But that's not the policy. 200 to Rwanda is not even a weekends worth.

No, but if you want it to be the policy then once 200 have gone you can make it so, with their co-operation.

Zero or non-zero is a bigger difference with a policy like this than 200 and everybody is.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

Where in the Red Wall is Uxbridge?

I've driven regularly all over the Northwest but I've never seen Uxbridge. Is it off the M6, the M56, the M63? I khan't find it on my map.

Mexicanpete said:

...

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Wow, £4k per month! Have you applied a 35% discount code, and could you pass it on to me please?

Also, 20 years to go without youjr own house ...

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

@HYUFD your calculations are off. I think you mean 20 months, not 20 years.

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

They do. If they think railing against the Mayor of London plays well they are dead wrong. Red Wall or Blue, dislike London or not, it is simply not relevant.

Your 'Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election' are some tremendously disconnected sentences. Why would they think that when there were some very particular local factors at play in Uxbridge?

It doesn't even make sense on its face - he cost Labour a seat in London due to some very London issues, therefore he will cost them in places nowhere near London. It's insane.

BartholomewRoberts said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

Where in the Red Wall is Uxbridge?

I've driven regularly all over the Northwest but I've never seen Uxbridge. Is it off the M6, the M56, the M63? I khan't find it on my map.

🙄 “ Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.”

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

If they were guaranteed to be sent to Rwanda it absolutely would dissuade them, as it did when Australia implemented the policy and crossings stopped.

Why come here to be sent to Rwanda when you could instead go to any other European country and not be sent to Rwanda?

But it will only dissuade people if the policy is happening, but if it is, the crossings wouldn't slow they'd stop.

But that's not the policy. 200 to Rwanda is not even a weekends worth.

No, but if you want it to be the policy then once 200 have gone you can make it so, with their co-operation.

Zero or non-zero is a bigger difference with a policy like this than 200 and everybody is.

We cannot make it so. Rwanda is a sovereign country.

Yes we can, with their cooperation, as I said.

This is the playbook as it happened with Australia and PNG etc - it was the Australian courts and politics that prevented this policy being greenlit for years and when it was eventually greenlit it was for a limited number.

Once the limited number were flying, PNG were all too happy to offer to take everyone Australia could send (in exchange for more cash of course) and within a year of the policy starting it was rapidly expanded beyond the initial trial and to a more blanket solution. The barrier was always domestic politics, not the third parties limitations.

The barrier here is not Rwanda who will be all too happy to take more of our cash. The barrier is entirely domestic.

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

It says they own the £1 million townhouse plus inherited other properties too.

So no need for either to get a mortgage, just rent and then buy a house outright each once they inherit

What, 20, 30, 40 years of pissing rent money down the drain?

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

Where in the Red Wall is Uxbridge?

I've driven regularly all over the Northwest but I've never seen Uxbridge. Is it off the M6, the M56, the M63? I khan't find it on my map.

🙄 “ Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.”

coughcoughstrongandstablecoughcough

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

If they were guaranteed to be sent to Rwanda it absolutely would dissuade them, as it did when Australia implemented the policy and crossings stopped.

Why come here to be sent to Rwanda when you could instead go to any other European country and not be sent to Rwanda?

But it will only dissuade people if the policy is happening, but if it is, the crossings wouldn't slow they'd stop.

But that's not the policy. 200 to Rwanda is not even a weekends worth.

No, but if you want it to be the policy then once 200 have gone you can make it so, with their co-operation.

Zero or non-zero is a bigger difference with a policy like this than 200 and everybody is.

We cannot make it so. Rwanda is a sovereign country.

Rwanda has established itself deliberately as an asylum hosting state for Africa. It wants to do this and has the facilities.

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

Where in the Red Wall is Uxbridge?

I've driven regularly all over the Northwest but I've never seen Uxbridge. Is it off the M6, the M56, the M63? I khan't find it on my map.

🙄 “ Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.”

As it happens I got leaflets through my door this weekend from both the Tories and Lib Dems. Both mention schools, roads and other local priorities. Neither mentioned Khan, no. I've never heard anyone IRL mention Khan.

Batshit crazies might talking to other batshit crazies. I tend not to be a part of their conversations.

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

If they're economic migrants, why would the prospect of being sent to Rwanda not prevent them making the journey? Rwanda doesn't have the economical opportunities that the UK has, or they'd be going there in the first place. They are rational actors - let's not patronise them.

If they were acting rationally, they'd stay in France.

France is a more racist, less tolerant nation than the UK.

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

If they're economic migrants, why would the prospect of being sent to Rwanda not prevent them making the journey? Rwanda doesn't have the economical opportunities that the UK has, or they'd be going there in the first place. They are rational actors - let's not patronise them.

If they were acting rationally, they'd stay in France.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-15/muslims-fleeing-france-s-islamophobia-find-career-opportunities-abroad

Natasa Jevtovic, 38, left Paris for London in 2020 suspecting she would get better job opportunities as a young Muslim woman there. Her bet paid off.

Since moving to London, the finance project manager has flourished. She’s been promoted multiple times and now earns twice as much as she did in Paris. She believes none of that would’ve happened if she’d stayed in France, where she said she often experienced Islamophobia while working at a leading French bank.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

It says they own the £1 million townhouse plus inherited other properties too.

So no need for either to get a mortgage, just rent and then buy a house outright each once they inherit

What, 20, 30, 40 years of
pissing rent money down the
drain?

No funding their tenancy, of
course their parents could
sell a property or two and
give them money to buy a
property now or they could
move out of London and then
afford to get a mortgage
themselves sufficient to purchase a local property on their average salary

dixiedean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Donkeys said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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 wouldn't know there was a London Mayor, let alone an election, if I didn't come on here. It simply doesn't impinge on our consciousness up here.

Indeed, when it comes to Mayors, far more people around here would think of Burnham than Khan.

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Donkeys said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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.

Muslim baiting otoh..

Modi operandi?

All three of you have form for playing the Hindutva card against Sunak.

Modi's puppet.

Follow the money.

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

If they're economic migrants, why would the prospect of being sent to Rwanda not prevent them making the journey? Rwanda doesn't have the economical opportunities that the UK has, or they'd be going there in the first place. They are rational actors - let's not patronise them.

If they were acting rationally, they'd stay in France.

No they wouldn't. They've got 3 times the chance of being successful in their asylum claim here because the Home Office can't be arsed: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

Where in the Red Wall is Uxbridge?

I've driven regularly all over the Northwest but I've never seen Uxbridge. Is it off the M6, the M56, the M63? I khan't find it on my map.

🙄 “ Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.”

No I haven't.
Cos nobody would know who they were talking about.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

It says they own the £1 million townhouse plus inherited other properties too.

So no need for either to get a mortgage, just rent and then buy a house outright each once they inherit

What, 20, 30, 40 years of pissing rent money down the drain?

Yeah, there is that. But also I just think by the age of 40 it would be good idea to buy a property. He can't stay in houseshares until he is 60 whilst waiting for an inheritance, that isn't a good plan.

darkage said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

It says they own the £1 million townhouse plus inherited other properties too.

So no need for either to get a mortgage, just rent and then buy a house outright each once they inherit

What, 20, 30, 40 years of pissing rent money down the drain?

Yeah, there is that. But also I just think by the age of 40 it would be good idea to buy a property. He can't stay in houseshares until he is 60 whilst waiting for an inheritance, that isn't a good plan.

Waiting for an inheritance isn't a good plan for anyone at all. Its absolutely crazy.

You can easily be 70+ and still have living parents nowadays.

Everyone should be able to support themselves and buy their own home via working themselves. Inheritance should never be a priority for anyone.

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

Presumably you accept that if 100% of boat people were instantly flown to Rwanda that would stop the boats overnight. Because of course it would

In which case you accept the principle - so all we are talking about is the percentage required so as to constitute a deterrent

However this is all a massive distraction by both sides. Far more important than illegal migration is legal migration. 1.4m people in two years. A truly stupefying statistic and a situation - if it endures - which will culturally transform the country in a way no one ever requested

The Tories deserve to die for this failure alone

Maybe voters know the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, but don’t actually see 1.2M people, other than a statistic on papers and news every six months. But they do see people of colour from far away, who could be of any persuasion and intention, so also a security issue, pulling up on beaches - and it then reminds the voters the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, so they want those boat crossings stopped. Which is the reason why the government have a policy and podium with STOP THE BOATS on it - because like you said, it’s irrational otherwise to have STOP THE BOATS slogan, and not STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS slogan

^
This. And the fact STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS won’t actually fit on the podium.

Hope this helps.

When are they to announce the 2nd of May again?

Leon said:

Here’s a measure of the Tory predicament

I can probably guess the voting intention of maybe 50 people I know (my extended family and my wider friendship group)

At the last election I reckon at least 20 of them voted Tory (possibly quite a lot more but let’s be strict)

This time? Maybe 2. Literally 2 people. At the very most, 4 or 5, if Sunak gets lucky

That’s a total collapse

Everyone is voting Keir or Reform now! And some voting LD 👍

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

If they're economic migrants, why would the prospect of being sent to Rwanda not prevent them making the journey? Rwanda doesn't have the economical opportunities that the UK has, or they'd be going there in the first place. They are rational actors - let's not patronise them.

If they were acting rationally, they'd stay in France.

Or the half a dozen EU states they crossed to reach France.

MoonRabbit said:

dixiedean said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

Where in the Red Wall is Uxbridge?

I've driven regularly all over the Northwest but I've never seen Uxbridge. Is it off the M6, the M56, the M63? I khan't find it on my map.

🙄 “ Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.”

No I haven't.
Cos nobody would know who they were talking about.

YES YOU HAVE!

Sorry for shouting, but the 30 pennies havn’t dropped yet.

Dixiedean and I are both from the Red Wall, from different sides of the political spectrum, and we're both telling you the same thing.

Not sure where you're from, maybe London or cloud cuckoo land, if you think voters here give a shit about Khan.

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

Presumably you accept that if 100% of boat people were instantly flown to Rwanda that would stop the boats overnight. Because of course it would

In which case you accept the principle - so all we are talking about is the percentage required so as to constitute a deterrent

However this is all a massive distraction by both sides. Far more important than illegal migration is legal migration. 1.4m people in two years. A truly stupefying statistic and a situation - if it endures - which will culturally transform the country in a way no one ever requested

The Tories deserve to die for this failure alone

Maybe voters know the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, but don’t actually see 1.2M people, other than a statistic on papers and news every six months. But they do see people of colour from far away, who could be of any persuasion and intention, so also a security issue, pulling up on beaches - and it then reminds the voters the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, so they want those boat crossings stopped. Which is the reason why the government have a policy and podium with STOP THE BOATS on it - because like you said, it’s irrational otherwise to have STOP THE BOATS slogan, and not STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS slogan

^
This. And the fact STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS won’t actually fit on the podium.

Hope this helps.

Sunak has been banging on about "STOP THE BOATS" for a year now. The polls have further moved against him.

It ain't going to work.

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Donkeys said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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.

Muslim baiting otoh..

Modi operandi?

All three of you have form for playing the Hindutva card against Sunak.

Rishi Sunak's mother-in-law Sudha Murty is appointed to Indian Parliament

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13173277/Rishi-Sunak-mother-law-Sudha-Murty-India-Akshata-charity.html

Benpointer said:

darkage said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

@HYUFD your calculations are off. I think you mean 20 months, not 20 years.

No, 20 months at £4k = £80k not £1m

20years x £4k x 12months x 2 people is £1.92 million, more than the total value of the estate - there would be no money left, certainly not enough to buy 2x average priced houses.

Benpointer said:

SandyRentool said:

Leon said:

SandyRentool said:

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

It isn't us winning that gives me a buzz. It is the Tories being defeated that matters.

Quite frankly I'll be mildly disappointed by a Tory defeat. I want to see them obliterated.

If you look at the polling before the 1997 general election there were frequently polls that put Tory support above 30%. The last such poll now, was in June 2023.

The Tories are on course to be obliterated. Things are so much worse for them now than they were in 1997.

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

Presumably you accept that if 100% of boat people were instantly flown to Rwanda that would stop the boats overnight. Because of course it would

In which case you accept the principle - so all we are talking about is the percentage required so as to constitute a deterrent

However this is all a massive distraction by both sides. Far more important than illegal migration is legal migration. 1.4m people in two years. A truly stupefying statistic and a situation - if it endures - which will culturally transform the country in a way no one ever requested

The Tories deserve to die for this failure alone

I agree with the latter point.

Regarding Rwanda, I don't think there's any percentage sufficient to deter that we could remotely afford (at £20k-£30k per refugee). In any event a few hundred isn't going to cut it.

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

It says they own the £1 million townhouse plus inherited other properties too.

So no need for either to get a mortgage, just rent and then buy a house outright each once they inherit

What, 20, 30, 40 years of pissing rent money down the drain?

Yeah, there is that. But also I just think by the age of 40 it would be good idea to buy a property. He can't stay in houseshares until he is 60 whilst waiting for an inheritance, that isn't a good plan.

Waiting for an inheritance isn't a good plan for anyone at all. Its absolutely crazy.

You can easily be 70+ and still have living parents nowadays.

Everyone should be able to support themselves and buy their own home via working themselves. Inheritance should never be a priority for anyone.

The housing options for someone who lives alone in London earning 30k are non existent. You would need to save about 100k to buy a studio flat, which would take at least 15 years.

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

It says they own the £1 million townhouse plus inherited other properties too.

So no need for either to get a mortgage, just rent and then buy a house outright each once they inherit

What, 20, 30, 40 years of pissing rent money down the drain?

Yeah, there is that. But also I just think by the age of 40 it would be good idea to buy a property. He can't stay in houseshares until he is 60 whilst waiting for an inheritance, that isn't a good plan.

Waiting for an inheritance isn't a good plan for anyone at all. Its absolutely crazy.

You can easily be 70+ and still have living parents nowadays.

Everyone should be able to support themselves and buy their own home via working themselves. Inheritance should never be a priority for anyone.

If my Dad lives to the age that his Dad lived to then my daughter will be 42 when her Grandad dies, and if she had been waiting for that inheritance to give her secure housing so that she could start a family then it would likely be too late for her.

Inheritance doesn't solve the housing crisis.

londonpubman said:

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

Presumably you accept that if 100% of boat people were instantly flown to Rwanda that would stop the boats overnight. Because of course it would

In which case you accept the principle - so all we are talking about is the percentage required so as to constitute a deterrent

However this is all a massive distraction by both sides. Far more important than illegal migration is legal migration. 1.4m people in two years. A truly stupefying statistic and a situation - if it endures - which will culturally transform the country in a way no one ever requested

The Tories deserve to die for this failure alone

Maybe voters know the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, but don’t actually see 1.2M people, other than a statistic on papers and news every six months. But they do see people of colour from far away, who could be of any persuasion and intention, so also a security issue, pulling up on beaches - and it then reminds the voters the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, so they want those boat crossings stopped. Which is the reason why the government have a policy and podium with STOP THE BOATS on it - because like you said, it’s irrational otherwise to have STOP THE BOATS slogan, and not STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS slogan

^
This. And the fact STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS won’t actually fit on the podium.

Hope this helps.

Sunak has been banging on about "STOP THE BOATS" for a year now. The polls have further moved against him.

It ain't going to work.

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

Presumably you accept that if 100% of boat people were instantly flown to Rwanda that would stop the boats overnight. Because of course it would

In which case you accept the principle - so all we are talking about is the percentage required so as to constitute a deterrent

However this is all a massive distraction by both sides. Far more important than illegal migration is legal migration. 1.4m people in two years. A truly stupefying statistic and a situation - if it endures - which will culturally transform the country in a way no one ever requested

The Tories deserve to die for this failure alone

Maybe voters know the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, but don’t actually see 1.2M people, other than a statistic on papers and news every six months. But they do see people of colour from far away, who could be of any persuasion and intention, so also a security issue, pulling up on beaches - and it then reminds the voters the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, so they want those boat crossings stopped. Which is the reason why the government have a policy and podium with STOP THE BOATS on it - because like you said, it’s irrational otherwise to have STOP THE BOATS slogan, and not STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS slogan

^
This. And the fact STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS won’t actually fit on the podium.

Hope this helps.

Sunak has been banging on about "STOP THE BOATS" for a year now. The polls have further moved against him.

It ain't going to work.

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

They're not motivated by fleeing certain death though are they, or they'd be claiming asylum in France, and successfully so. Let's not bullshit here.

I didn't say they were. I have no doubt most are economic migrants. That still doesn't mean Rwanda will dissuade them. What's your point?

Presumably you accept that if 100% of boat people were instantly flown to Rwanda that would stop the boats overnight. Because of course it would

In which case you accept the principle - so all we are talking about is the percentage required so as to constitute a deterrent

However this is all a massive distraction by both sides. Far more important than illegal migration is legal migration. 1.4m people in two years. A truly stupefying statistic and a situation - if it endures - which will culturally transform the country in a way no one ever requested

The Tories deserve to die for this failure alone

Maybe voters know the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, but don’t actually see 1.2M people, other than a statistic on papers and news every six months. But they do see people of colour from far away, who could be of any persuasion and intention, so also a security issue, pulling up on beaches - and it then reminds the voters the country is full, which is why we pay £1Trillion but they can’t see a dentist or doctor and the schools and hospitals have fallen apart, so they want those boat crossings stopped. Which is the reason why the government have a policy and podium with STOP THE BOATS on it - because like you said, it’s irrational otherwise to have STOP THE BOATS slogan, and not STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS slogan

^
This. And the fact STOP THE 1.4M LEGAL MIGRANTS WE HAVE LET IN THE LAST TWO YEARS won’t actually fit on the podium.

Hope this helps.

Sunak has been banging on about "STOP THE BOATS" for a year now. The polls have further moved against him.

It ain't going to work.

No one is bothered about immigration.

It's all about the economy. CON have wrecked the economy.

Everyone is voting Rachel now!

The one with the helmet haircut looking like a storm trooper from legion of the damned?

Well I’m not, so you can knock 1 off of ‘everyone’.

All those fringes on the Labour front bench. Not good.

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

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)

Average residential care costs are £4k a month. Given
their parents estate is over £1 million in one townhouse plus other properties both parents would need residential care for at least 20 years for them not to inherit enough to buy at least an average priced house outright each

https://lottie.org/fees-funding/care-home-costs/

Assuming they own all those properties outright and aren't leveraged to the hilt.

It says they own the £1 million townhouse plus inherited other properties too.

So no need for either to get a mortgage, just rent and then buy a house outright each once they inherit

What, 20, 30, 40 years of pissing rent money down the drain?

Yeah, there is that. But also I just think by the age of 40 it would be good idea to buy a property. He can't stay in houseshares until he is 60 whilst waiting for an inheritance, that isn't a good plan.

Waiting for an inheritance isn't a good plan for anyone at all. Its absolutely crazy.

You can easily be 70+ and still have living parents nowadays.

Everyone should be able to support themselves and buy their own home via working themselves. Inheritance should never be a priority for anyone.

My 73 yo father-in-law was carer for his 95 yo mother till just before Christmas.
The only reason he isn't any more is because he just died. He never got a quarter share of that bungalow in North Shields.

BartholomewRoberts said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MoonRabbit said:

dixiedean said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MoonRabbit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Donkeys said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Senior Tories are planning to oust Rishi Sunak as PM after a meeting of more than 50 Tory MP and peers

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1766866482292490675

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'm sure voters around here are dying to say "yes my rent/mortgage has shot up so I was going to vote against the government, but Sadiq Khan ..."

Its the most insane argument I've ever read. I've never heard a single person IRL, of any particular stripe or none ever bring up Sadiq Khan. Why would they?

You’ve not been paying any attention at all.

Khan cost Labour Uxbridge. And so the government realised Khan could cost Labour the whole General Election. From that moment on the Tories have bet the house on Khan costing Labour the election, from war on cars to Hamas rallies destroying British democracy, Khan is at the centre of every reason not to vote Labour.

Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.

Either they have it wrong, or you.

Where in the Red Wall is Uxbridge?

I've driven regularly all over the Northwest but I've never seen Uxbridge. Is it off the M6, the M56, the M63? I khan't find it on my map.

🙄 “ Have you not heard Tory MPs in northern seats more than happy to use the “k” word? Why are they doing that do you think, if it’s pointless.”

No I haven't.
Cos nobody would know who they were talking about.

YES YOU HAVE!

Sorry for shouting, but the 30 pennies havn’t dropped yet.

Dixiedean and I are both from the Red Wall, from different sides of the political spectrum, and we're both telling you the same thing.

Not sure where you're from, maybe London or cloud cuckoo land, if you think voters here give a shit about Khan.

That’s not the point we are making here. You said Tories up North don’t mention Khan, but we know they do, and we know the reason why.

They don't.

By coincidence, I've got a leaflet from the Tories through my door today. I haven't recycled it yet, so I can tell you what it does actually mention.

Does mention (and I'm quoting here, not agreeing with them):
Local representation
Cleaning up local area
Schools
Police
United Utilities
Road Safety
ASB
Road Signage
Pot Holes
Getting information out, where its needed
Repairs to steps, paths and bridges
Supporting local business
Charity Events
Working for residents.

Does not mention:
Khan
London

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnk593139n2o

You lose! 😇

Leon said:

Here’s a measure of the Tory predicament

I can probably guess the voting intention of maybe 50 people I know (my extended family and my wider friendship group)

At the last election I reckon at least 20 of them voted Tory (possibly quite a lot more but let’s be strict)

This time? Maybe 2. Literally 2 people. At the very most, 4 or 5, if Sunak gets lucky

That’s a total collapse

I guess those 4 or 5 are posher on average than the 20 who voted for Boris? Say what you like about Rishi but he has stopped many of the oiks who voted Tory last time doing so again as they have gone off to Reform or even Starmer Labour.

He may even have gained the odd West London or Surrey Remained who voted LD last time. So at least Rishi has made the average Tory voter acceptable enough to get an invite to one of TSE's candlelit dinner parties which wasn't the case with Boris.

Even if he leads the Tories to record defeat he has made voting Tory something to aspire to again not for the common herd, much as it was in 1997 or 1832, indeed even more so

Have hard time thinking that many voters in Red Wall - or Blue Wall - give a flip who is Mayor of London, either way. Indeed, sounds like quasi-aberrant (if not abhorrent) behavior for folks outside Greater London. Politicos, pundents & PBers excepted.

Would be an interesting question for an opinion poll. Any previous polling out there for England?

In Washington State, the City of Seattle evokes negative vibes for many folks in eastern and southwest WA. Reasons vary but one is perception that Seattle battens on rural taxpayers, when opposite is true. Better argument is that Seattle & suburbs sucks up all the investment money, including govt infrastructure, benefiting Seattle greatly, other places somewhat, and some places diddly squat.

Republicans, including country mice, city rats and suburban hamsters, also get the red ass (pun intended) because Seattle voting numbers and demographics are key part of equation that (mostly) consigns WA GOP to minority status at federal and state level.

So there are some local, legislative and statewide candidates who bang the anti-Seattle drum.

However, in most elections for statewide office, the louder they thump their lambeg, the less they appeal to swing and moderate voters.

Ballot measures can be a somewhat different story.