Stop voting for fucking Tories

[I like neeps]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

You could argue that it would deter the asylum seekers, who do have some agency in this. They are not trekking from Iran, Kurdistan etc and giving substantial amounts of their life savings to people smugglers with the aim of ending up in some African country they have never heard of.

However, it's still a dumb and impractical policy designed and presented primarily for the British tabloids.

It's very unlikely they will end up in Rwanda though. Tens of thousands of people get to the UK per year with around a hundred odd actually sent to Rwanda. If you're desperate enough to try the journey you'll face the odds. Better than the alternatives.

[_Os_]

From twitter:

Today government supporters will want UK to leave ECHR, which will breach Good Friday Agreement, while wanting to breach the Northern Ireland Protocol one supposed basis of protecting the Good Friday Agreement

And few of them will realise - or care - about this contradiction

They also want to dabble in cancel culture and kick the bishops out of the Lords for their letter on Rwanda.

A special breed of idiot is the conservative.

This is why ideology is important in politics. Nothing can be done if there's no set of comprehensive overarching principles.

The Tories being immoral and unprincipled, doesn't just mean they have mass gatherings when they had made that illegal, nor does it mean they're just corrupt with unknown billions disappearing in government contracts. It also means they're incompetent and will not be able to achieve anything, even if there's a few competent ones that somehow survive they'll be banging heads with others working in the opposite direction. If there's no principles there's a massive mess.

I think many in the UK have a false impression about the Tories and what's now being called English nationalism, purely because of Thatcher. Thatcher copied and pasted Hayek and Friedman, this gave her an ideological framework to work within (which wasn't conservative). If people agree with what she did or not, stuff got done and there was a logical consistency to it, this created an aura of competency about her and by extension the Tories. That's all gone now (the hint is the hatred most Tory MPs have for the Single Market, a Thatcher creation), it's not obvious how it comes back (how can Thatcherism fix the problems of Thatcherism?), and it has been replaced with nothing besides empty three word slogans. "Oven Ready Deal" to "Get Brexit Done" because "Brexit Means Brexit", is just meaningless bullshit.

Having no principles worked okay-ish for them when they were administering what they inherited (Cameron years). It's a total disaster now they're trying to do something new, it's just daily ongoing destruction creating a massive mess. I'm not the only South African looking at this thinking it's all very familiar.

[robmatic]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

You could argue that it would deter the asylum seekers, who do have some agency in this. They are not trekking from Iran, Kurdistan etc and giving substantial amounts of their life savings to people smugglers with the aim of ending up in some African country they have never heard of.

However, it's still a dumb and impractical policy designed and presented primarily for the British tabloids.

It's very unlikely they will end up in Rwanda though. Tens of thousands of people get to the UK per year with around a hundred odd actually sent to Rwanda. If you're desperate enough to try the journey you'll face the odds. Better than the alternatives.

Exactly, that's why I think it's a policy for the headlines rather than something that will actually have an impact on the issue, unless Patel is really quite thick (but that's not impossible).

[I like neeps]

From twitter:

Today government supporters will want UK to leave ECHR, which will breach Good Friday Agreement, while wanting to breach the Northern Ireland Protocol one supposed basis of protecting the Good Friday Agreement

And few of them will realise - or care - about this contradiction

They also want to dabble in cancel culture and kick the bishops out of the Lords for their letter on Rwanda.

A special breed of idiot is the conservative.

This is why ideology is important in politics. Nothing can be done if there's no set of comprehensive overarching principles.

The Tories being immoral and unprincipled, doesn't just mean they have mass gatherings when they had made that illegal, nor does it mean they're just corrupt with unknown billions disappearing in government contracts. It also means they're incompetent and will not be able to achieve anything, even if there's a few competent ones that somehow survive they'll be banging heads with others working in the opposite direction. If there's no principles there's a massive mess.

I think many in the UK have a false impression about the Tories and what's now being called English nationalism, purely because of Thatcher. Thatcher copied and pasted Hayek and Friedman, this gave her an ideological framework to work within (which wasn't conservative). If people agree with what she did or not, stuff got done and there was a logical consistency to it, this created an aura of competency about her and by extension the Tories. That's all gone now (the hint is the hatred most Tory MPs have for the Single Market, a Thatcher creation), it's not obvious how it comes back (how can Thatcherism fix the problems of Thatcherism?), and it has been replaced with nothing besides empty three word slogans. "Oven Ready Deal" to "Get Brexit Done" because "Brexit Means Brexit", is just meaningless bullshit.

Having no principles worked okay-ish for them when they were administering what they inherited (Cameron years). It's a total disaster now they're trying to do something new, it's just daily ongoing destruction creating a massive mess. I'm not the only South African looking at this thinking it's all very familiar.

They had principles during the Cameron years. It was to shrink the state - "austerity" - and pretty much every decision that followed was based on that principle. Not that I liked him, but he did have principles.

[Biffer]

From twitter:

Today government supporters will want UK to leave ECHR, which will breach Good Friday Agreement, while wanting to breach the Northern Ireland Protocol one supposed basis of protecting the Good Friday Agreement

And few of them will realise - or care - about this contradiction

They also want to dabble in cancel culture and kick the bishops out of the Lords for their letter on Rwanda.

A special breed of idiot is the conservative.

This is why ideology is important in politics. Nothing can be done if there's no set of comprehensive overarching principles.

The Tories being immoral and unprincipled, doesn't just mean they have mass gatherings when they had made that illegal, nor does it mean they're just corrupt with unknown billions disappearing in government contracts. It also means they're incompetent and will not be able to achieve anything, even if there's a few competent ones that somehow survive they'll be banging heads with others working in the opposite direction. If there's no principles there's a massive mess.

I think many in the UK have a false impression about the Tories and what's now being called English nationalism, purely because of Thatcher. Thatcher copied and pasted Hayek and Friedman, this gave her an ideological framework to work within (which wasn't conservative). If people agree with what she did or not, stuff got done and there was a logical consistency to it, this created an aura of competency about her and by extension the Tories. That's all gone now (the hint is the hatred most Tory MPs have for the Single Market, a Thatcher creation), it's not obvious how it comes back (how can Thatcherism fix the problems of Thatcherism?), and it has been replaced with nothing besides empty three word slogans. "Oven Ready Deal" to "Get Brexit Done" because "Brexit Means Brexit", is just meaningless bullshit.

Having no principles worked okay-ish for them when they were administering what they inherited (Cameron years). It's a total disaster now they're trying to do something new, it's just daily ongoing destruction creating a massive mess. I'm not the only South African looking at this thinking it's all very familiar.

They had principles during the Cameron years. It was to shrink the state - "austerity" - and pretty much every decision that followed was based on that principle. Not that I liked him, but he did have principles.

Yeah, they did ha e something that they thought was the right thing to do, rather than just chasing headlines and public opinion like the current lot. Cameron downfall was when he stepped away from what he actually believed in (however misguided I or anyone else might feel that was) and tried to play internal tory politics with the referendum - first by putting it into the manifesto in an election he thought he wouldn't get a majority in (and it would have been the first thing out of the window when another coalition agreement was negotiated) and then by fucking up the referendum campaign and not going in hard and aggressive on the lies from the leave campaign, because he didn't want to split his party.

[Biffer]

Actually, thinking a wee bit more on that, both parties have been their most successful electorally when they've gone hard after the extremists or splitters in their own party. Thatcher went to town on the wets and then on anyone who tried to camoaign against her. Blair went after the far left and knocked them down for a decade or more. Since then, narrow majorities & hung elections resulting in a populist clown. If Cameron and his allies had gone to town on the lying dissembling shits in their own party, most of whom would lose to anything in a blue rosette in their safe seats should they leave, he could have won the referendum, cleared the extremists out of his party and secured his legacy (to be clear I'm not saying I wanted that legacy). Starmer should similarly being going after the far left ruthlessly.

Lesson is that moderate leaders need to go hard after the dissenting voices in their broad church.

[tabascoboy]

From twitter:

Today government supporters will want UK to leave ECHR, which will breach Good Friday Agreement, while wanting to breach the Northern Ireland Protocol one supposed basis of protecting the Good Friday Agreement

And few of them will realise - or care - about this contradiction

They also want to dabble in cancel culture and kick the bishops out of the Lords for their letter on Rwanda.

A special breed of idiot is the conservative.

And guess which 2 European nations are not currently signatories to the ECHR? If you guess Russia and Belarus then you're spot on, what a great signal if we join their company...

[_Os_]

They had principles during the Cameron years. It was to shrink the state - "austerity" - and pretty much every decision that followed was based on that principle. Not that I liked him, but he did have principles.

It's something I suppose, but not really a systematic set of universal principles. If "austerity" qualifies then I guess you could say May and Johnson have a principle to "leave Europe", it's not convincing either of them actually believe this, but the Tories as a party do.

Principles like "austerity" and "leave Europe", aren't substantial enough to build something new from, they're about not doing something. Looking at the Tory schemes to build something new "Leveling Up" is currently a total Potemkin, the money is less than headline figures and how does anything get "Leveled Up" without economic growth. "Benefits To Bricks" (three word slogan alert), seems to be an attempt to give mortgages to people that cannot afford them. No one can explain the Tory plan for UK agriculture, it seems to be cut subsidies (austerity), compete globally without the land area/economies of scale, whilst destroying the existing business model (leave Europe) and re-wild. This mess is becoming more widespread the longer they're in power.

Because there's no substantial overarching principles to any of this, it all clashes and starts working against itself. Do the Tories want a low tax small state (austerity) or do they want quite a large active state (Leveling Up), and what is their plan for not being in the Single Market (leave Europe) whilst producing economic growth. Currently they've somehow created a high tax state that's also a small state they want to shrink further (axe the civil servants), where economics don't seem to matter and they just keep borrowing instead.

[I like neeps]

They had principles during the Cameron years. It was to shrink the state - "austerity" - and pretty much every decision that followed was based on that principle. Not that I liked him, but he did have principles.

It's something I suppose, but not really a systematic set of universal principles. If "austerity" qualifies then I guess you could say May and Johnson have a principle to "leave Europe", it's not convincing either of them actually believe this, but the Tories as a party do.

Principles like "austerity" and "leave Europe", aren't substantial enough to build something new from, they're about not doing something. Looking at the Tory schemes to build something new "Leveling Up" is currently a total Potemkin, the money is less than headline figures and how does anything get "Leveled Up" without economic growth. "Benefits To Bricks" (three word slogan alert), seems to be an attempt to give mortgages to people that cannot afford them. No one can explain the Tory plan for UK agriculture, it seems to be cut subsidies (austerity), compete globally without the land area/economies of scale, whilst destroying the existing business model (leave Europe) and re-wild. This mess is becoming more widespread the longer they're in power.

Because there's no substantial overarching principles to any of this, it all clashes and starts working against itself. Do the Tories want a low tax small state (austerity) or do they want quite a large active state (Leveling Up), and what is their plan for not being in the Single Market (leave Europe) whilst producing economic growth. Currently they've somehow created a high tax state that's also a small state they want to shrink further (axe the civil servants), where economics don't seem to matter and they just keep borrowing instead.

Well austerity is shrinking the state which is a classic right wing ideology. So I think Cameron had one. I personally don't understand what you can build with a smaller debt free state as it's just totally at odds with history but there is something there.

May had a more active state but she was bogged down by the brexit wars.

Agree Johnson has no principles - levelling up could be one but it's a slogan. Leaving the EU and becoming a low tax Singapore on Thames could be one but it's not viable.

[Mahoney]

At a simpler level of principles I think both May & Cameron are genuinely small-c conservatives with an instinct to preserve and keep things as they are. And to try and behave with a reasonable level of integrity & honesty in the inevitably compromised world of politics. May fundamentally fell because she wouldn't lie about the dilemma posed by Brexit to NI, and wanted to protect the union, whereas Johnson happily lied about it, signed a deal that damages the union and now is trying to wriggle out of it.

[Hal Jordan]

Cameron was an appalling Prime Minister because he was an absolute coward. Couldn't face dealing with the headbangers, then immediately quit on his stool when the result of the referendum came through.

[_Os_]

At a simpler level of principles I think both May & Cameron are genuinely small-c conservatives with an instinct to preserve and keep things as they are. And to try and behave with a reasonable level of integrity & honesty in the inevitably compromised world of politics. May fundamentally fell because she wouldn't lie about the dilemma posed by Brexit to NI, and wanted to protect the union, whereas Johnson happily lied about it, signed a deal that damages the union and now is trying to wriggle out of it.

I agree that truth is the important part, without that or at least the search for it, there can't be any systematic morality or principles.

Of the three May is the stand out, she was truthful enough to literally call it "the hostile environment policy" and it did what it said. But her morality is suspect, she conflates something being legal with it being moral. But there was still some substance behind it all grounded in some search/attempt for truth, which probably comes from her being the most religious of the three (which matters more in a conservative party, as there's not much of a builtin universal value set). I agree that's also what ended her as PM during the Brexit process.

Cameron I don't agree on though, he lied a lot and on a wide variety of topics, just made statistics up from nothing, some of the corrections organisations/publications made to his lies can still be Googled. He was doing "Booster-ism" and empty slogans before Johnson was. He was hiding from interviewers by abruptly walking away, before Johnson hid by walking into a fridge. Part of Brexit means the Cameron period hasn't been reappraised with the benefit of hindsight, because those that would've done it are focused on the moment. This has produced an analysis that Johnson is the aberration, but a lot of Johnson's style and (lack of) substance is an extreme progression from Cameron.

[tabascoboy]

[sefton]

Another BoJo ethics adviser resigns.

[fishfoodie]

Another BoJo ethics adviser resigns.

and does so in a pathetic way that demonstrates balls smaller than a mosquito.

[GogLais]

When did PMs start needing ethics advisers and are ethics that complicated,

[fishfoodie]

When did PMs start needing ethics advisers and are ethics that complicated,

Eton have obviously removed them from the syllabus.

[Insane_Homer]

Dominic Raab on @BBCRadio4 Today re Lord Geidt resignation

"I don’t know if there’s a letter"
...
"I haven’t read the letter"

[fishfoodie]

And the letter is now published, & the reason he resigned is that he can't stand over the Government claims that the NIP isn't a deliberate breach of International Law

[SaintK]

And the letter is now published, & the reason he resigned is that he can't stand over the Government claims that the NIP isn't a deliberate breach of International Law

Fairly blunt and to the point!!!

This week, however, I was tasked to offer a view about the Government's intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position. My informal response on Monday was that you and any other Minister should justify openly your position vis-a-vis the Code in such circumstances. However, the idea that a Prime Minister might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own Code is an affront. A deliberate breach, or even an intention to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the Code to suit a political end. This would make a mockery not only of respect for the Code but licence the suspension of its provisions in governing the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. I can have no part in this. Because of my obligation as a witness in Parliament, this is the first opportunity I have had to act on the Government's intentions. I therefore resign from this appointment with immediate effect.

[tabascoboy]

Well depending on whose opinion you take, he resigned either because:

1) The words and actions of the PM put him on an impossible position; or
2) It's all the fault of the opposition playing political games in a smear campaign

So predictably the RIght are merely circling the wagons again.

[fishfoodie]

And the letter is now published, & the reason he resigned is that he can't stand over the Government claims that the NIP isn't a deliberate breach of International Law

Fairly blunt and to the point!!!

This week, however, I was tasked to offer a view about the Government's intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position. My informal response on Monday was that you and any other Minister should justify openly your position vis-a-vis the Code in such circumstances. However, the idea that a Prime Minister might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own Code is an affront. A deliberate breach, or even an intention to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the Code to suit a political end. This would make a mockery not only of respect for the Code but licence the suspension of its provisions in governing the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. I can have no part in this. Because of my obligation as a witness in Parliament, this is the first opportunity I have had to act on the Government's intentions. I therefore resign from this appointment with immediate effect.

The Bumblecunt spin in his reply, that this is something to do with Steel tariffs, doesn't seem to be being swallowed by the Media; but they aren't yet drawing the obvious conclusion, just based on the day mentioned for the request to green light breaking the code.

[Hal Jordan]

Another one under the bus to keep Johnson in the hot seat.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Well depending on whose opinion you take, he resigned either because:

1) The words and actions of the PM put him on an impossible position; or
2) It's all the fault of the opposition playing political games in a smear campaign

So predictably the RIght are merely circling the wagons again.

Ellis was the chap who contended Priti Patel was entitled to accept luxury tickets to a Bond premiere because watching the film would inform executive function of her office

[_Os_]

Anyone who voted for a "free trade WTO rules Brexit", is about to be force fed some garbage about Geidt working in the interest of evil unelected WTO bureaucrats in Geneva. Most of them will swallow it too.

[Insane_Homer]

[SaintK]

Does he really think we believe any of this shit?

[SaintK]

Becoming clearer now

[fishfoodie]

[_Os_]

Johnson wants incompetents and/or morons as MPs, because they cannot challenge him. If they're compromised in some way (something in their background like Shapps and his multiple names and grubby get rich quick schemes, or something whilst in government like cabinet ministers with interesting connections to Covid contracts) then that's excellent too for the same reason. Johnson then constructs his government from a pool of incompetent compromised morons.

That's a premium choice Johnson candidate, has a natural talent for at least one of the three requirements.

[Hal Jordan]

Good news! Johnson wants to insulate homes to help lower energy bills!

Spoiler

Show

By raiding the funds earmarked for energy efficiency measures in schools and hospitals.

Jesus wept.

[SaintK]

He'll lie through his teeth come what may

Boris Johnson could be ordered to give evidence under oath when MPs begin a new investigation into claims he lied about Partygate.

The privileges committee is expected to start its inquiry within the next month and will aim to deliver a verdict by the autumn on whether Johnson misled parliament. Sessions are likely to be held in public, in an attempt to limit potential criticism about the group’s work and avoid any accusations of a “cover up”.

[fishfoodie]

Geidt confirms the Steel Tariffs narrative is bullshit

Lord Geidt continued: "Emphasis on the steel tariffs question is a distraction.

"It was simply one example of what might yet constitute deliberate breaches by the United Kingdom of its obligations under international law, given the government's widely publicised openness to this."

https://news.sky.com/story/lord-geidt-g ... r-12635816

[tabascoboy]

Defence Secretary manages to misspell the name of a country that has been constantly in the news for 6 months no fewer than 4 times in 5 tweets - but he does at least know how to spell "bollocks"

2. Visits are sometimes necessary in person because not everything can be discussed securely over phones etc. Russia has an aggressive electronic warfare and signal intelligence operation. 2/5
3. The timings of such visits are usually a matter for the hosts but I know the PM wanted to visit before Nato Leaders summit in 10 days time.
4. As a Northern MP , myself i am not affronted by the fact he had to cancel speaking at the conference. The PM can remedy that in many ways however taking the opportunity to visit a country and ally at war to ensure we are doing everything we can to help is also important. As a northern MP I am proud that Britain has been at the forefront of the international effort to support Ukriane. Helping Ukriane win and trying to help at home are linked. Part of the inflation we see comes from gas and food prices which are partly driven upwards because of this conflict. Amazing how an important trip can generate so much conspiracy bollocks. 5/5

[GogLais]

Defence Secretary manages to misspell the name of a country that has been constantly in the news for 6 months no fewer than 4 times in 5 tweets - but he does at least know how to spell "bollocks"

A Cabinet Minister using bollocks in public messaging? We are plumbing the depths, I thought he was an officer and a gentleman.

[SaintK]

Defence Secretary manages to misspell the name of a country that has been constantly in the news for 6 months no fewer than 4 times in 5 tweets - but he does at least know how to spell "bollocks"

2. Visits are sometimes necessary in person because not everything can be discussed securely over phones etc. Russia has an aggressive electronic warfare and signal intelligence operation. 2/5
3. The timings of such visits are usually a matter for the hosts but I know the PM wanted to visit before Nato Leaders summit in 10 days time.
4. As a Northern MP , myself i am not affronted by the fact he had to cancel speaking at the conference. The PM can remedy that in many ways however taking the opportunity to visit a country and ally at war to ensure we are doing everything we can to help is also important. As a northern MP I am proud that Britain has been at the forefront of the international effort to support Ukriane. Helping Ukriane win and trying to help at home are linked. Part of the inflation we see comes from gas and food prices which are partly driven upwards because of this conflict. Amazing how an important trip can generate so much conspiracy bollocks. 5/5

I think he meant "grandstanding photo opportunity"
Especially as Draghi, Macron and Sholtz had visited earlier in the week.

[tabascoboy]

How out of touch are Tory candidates?

[GogLais]

How out of touch are Tory candidates?

And she was the best available candidate?

[SaintK]

How out of touch are Tory candidates?

She still has a 2 point lead according to a poll earlier in the week.
Hopefully it won't be big enough on the day!

[GogLais]

What gets me is that she either hasn’t the self-awareness to realise how she comes across or she’s too thick skinned to care.