Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Tichtheid]

Not usually a fan of Nick Robinson but this was a bulls eye!!!

I've just listened to that segment of the programme. Braverman starts out by saying "This is s time for action, not slogans" and proceeds to say "Stop the boats" twelve times during the interview (yes I did count them).

[Uncle fester]

[Slick]

I saw Tobias Elwood call this out and ask HQ to delete it

[Tichtheid]

I saw Tobias Elwood call this out and ask HQ to delete it

It's still there seven hours after posting, so I guess it has been met with approval at Tory party HQ

[Tichtheid]

In fact looking through that Cons twitter feed they have gone all in on the immigration gambit.

The next election campaign from them is going to be absolutely foul.

[fishfoodie]

"The Tories when the electorate ask for an Election to allow them to choose those who Govern them"

If the Tory scum want to do memes, then I will feel free to do my own !, as may you ....

[Tichtheid]

"The Tories when the electorate ask for an Election to allow them to choose those who Govern them"

If the Tory scum want to do memes, then I will feel free to do my own !, as may you ....

The Tories when you ask where all the money and the accountability went.

[_Os_]

When the Tories said there were no additional Rwanda costs, what they actually meant was the cost has doubled from £140m to £290m. This is only the up front cost, there's also the operating costs.

Whilst the treaty is uncapped (I've skimmed it there's no cap), it is limited by Rwandan capacity to process claims (the treaty is explicit that Rwanda can decline to accept asylum seekers), estimates of Rwandan capacity range from 200 to 500 per year. Processing the claims in the UK (the treaty makes clear that Rwanda is provided so much info, that there's been processing in the UK), enforced deportation, and then processing the claim in Rwanda and other operating costs in Rwanda, trying to find numbers on all that looks like about £30k-£40k per person (processing an asylum case in the UK £12k per person, enforced removal £15k per person for the detention/guards/flight, then the cost of processing the claim again in Rwanda and other Rwandan operating costs).

The treaty is explicit that it expires in April 2027 unless it's renewed. If 1500 asylum seekers are deported over that time, the total cost is around £340m, or £230k per person.

[lemonhead]

Single Transferable Vote please. May as well take responsibility for sinking the boat ourselves.

[Hal Jordan]

Want to make £290m with no effort? President Kagame will be streaming live at 8 p.m. tonight! Don't miss out!

[dpedin]

When the Tories said there were no additional Rwanda costs, what they actually meant was the cost has doubled from £140m to £290m. This is only the up front cost, there's also the operating costs.

Whilst the treaty is uncapped (I've skimmed it there's no cap), it is limited by Rwandan capacity to process claims (the treaty is explicit that Rwanda can decline to accept asylum seekers), estimates of Rwandan capacity range from 200 to 500 per year. Processing the claims in the UK (the treaty makes clear that Rwanda is provided so much info, that there's been processing in the UK), enforced deportation, and then processing the claim in Rwanda and other operating costs in Rwanda, trying to find numbers on all that looks like about £30k-£40k per person (processing an asylum case in the UK £12k per person, enforced removal £15k per person for the detention/guards/flight, then the cost of processing the claim again in Rwanda and other Rwandan operating costs).

The treaty is explicit that it expires in April 2027 unless it's renewed. If 1500 asylum seekers are deported over that time, the total cost is around £340m, or £230k per person.

Good analysis - do you also need to offset the costs of the UK accepting vulnerable refugees back from Rwanda as well? Treaty states the intention is 'to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom”. As with UK to Rwanda movement there are no numbers quoted for the this direction.

[dpedin]

Want to make £290m with no effort? President Kagame will be streaming live at 8 p.m. tonight! Don't miss out!

It isn't really the best place from which to negotiate a deal ... 'my Gov will collapse if the Rwanda deal doesn't go through'! Like with the EU it looks like Rwanda holds all the cards! UK must be the world's worst negotiators.

[tabascoboy]

Want to make £290m with no effort? President Kagame will be streaming live at 8 p.m. tonight! Don't miss out!

It isn't really the best place from which to negotiate a deal ... 'my Gov will collapse if the Rwanda deal doesn't go through'! Like with the EU it looks like Rwanda holds all the cards! UK must be the world's worst negotiators.

All this idiocy just to appease the forehead vein popping "stop the boats" brigade

and now

[Sandstorm]

Want to make £290m with no effort? President Kagame will be streaming live at 8 p.m. tonight! Don't miss out!

It isn't really the best place from which to negotiate a deal ... 'my Gov will collapse if the Rwanda deal doesn't go through'! Like with the EU it looks like Rwanda holds all the cards! UK must be the world's worst negotiators.

All this idiocy just to appease the forehead vein popping "stop the boats" brigade

and now

They finally "Got Something Done!" Maybe.

[Hal Jordan]

Sunak didn't waste time striking back, did he?

[Slick]

I was with a few Rwandans yesterday and they were basically pissing themselves laughing at what is going on. They are absolutely convinced nothing will ever actually happen and thought it was hilarious that the U.K. keep giving them cash.

Was also with a group from Côte d’Ivoire today who were furious with it all and took massive offence to the way the U.K. government is using Africa as a deterrent.

As an aside, they were also pissing themselves at the state of Edinburghs roads

[TedMaul]

We’ve all chatted to the till staff at TKMaxx in Edinburgh you know.

[Slick]

We’ve all chatted to the till staff at TKMaxx in Edinburgh you know.

Edgy

[Uncle fester]

[tabascoboy]

Author is a reporter at Bloomberg

[_Os_]

Still not much mention of this in the media. The general assumption is the Tories are doing badly but the polls will get closer (how? why?), and then the election somehow isn't a wipe out for the Tories (how does this make sense?). We know why the truth doesn't appear in the media much, billionaire Tories own most of the newspapers and fund them at a loss, the broadcast media then mostly follow like lemmings (if they do not they're targeted like Newsnight and Channel 4 News have been).

The Tories have been polling consistently below where they were at the end of 1996. The low end of Tory poll numbers in 1996 was the high 20s, which is at the high end of Tory polling now. The high end of Tory polling in 1996 was the mid 30s, which the Tories are nowhere close to now. Then there's real elections, by-elections and council elections, where the Tories have been smashed. Some of their voters also have a taste for voting for loonies to the right of the Tories with no chance of winning, which wasn't true in 1997. They're in far worse shape than they were going into 1997.

About the only thing working in the Tory's favour is Labour don't look as hot as they were going into 1997, they're polling at the low end of where they were in 1996. But that's not much to shout about given the Tory numbers. Even if the Tories get back half of the Reform crazies, it's still a worse vote share than 1997.

[weegie01]

As an aside, they were also pissing themselves at the state of Edinburghs roads

But what are their cycle lanes like?

[dpedin]

As an aside, they were also pissing themselves at the state of Edinburghs roads

But what are their cycle lanes like?

Edinburgh roads are just plain awful and getting worse, more potholes that road in many areas. At least it slows the traffic down to 20mph, Welsh Gov should try it.

[Hal Jordan]

Meanwhile, someone blew up a ULEZ camera and this attracts less attention than some orange powder chucked at a building.

[tabascoboy]

Eh, isn't this the kind of thing we denounce nations like Russia and China for?

Mr Jenrick said it was his view that border control would be "far more straightforward if we [the UK] extricated ourselves from the web of international frameworks that have taken on near mythical status within government".

"One of the advantages of our uncodified constitution is the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament to create law," he added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67669609

[Paddington Bear]

Eh, isn't this the kind of thing we denounce nations like Russia and China for?

Mr Jenrick said it was his view that border control would be "far more straightforward if we [the UK] extricated ourselves from the web of international frameworks that have taken on near mythical status within government".

"One of the advantages of our uncodified constitution is the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament to create law," he added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67669609

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

[petej]

Eh, isn't this the kind of thing we denounce nations like Russia and China for?

Mr Jenrick said it was his view that border control would be "far more straightforward if we [the UK] extricated ourselves from the web of international frameworks that have taken on near mythical status within government".

"One of the advantages of our uncodified constitution is the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament to create law," he added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67669609

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

Pushing democratically elected considering the leadership changes. They are along way from what blobby Johnson was elected on. Pretty sure they've broken multiple parts of the uncodified constitution.

[Paddington Bear]

Eh, isn't this the kind of thing we denounce nations like Russia and China for?



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67669609

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

Pushing democratically elected considering the leadership changes. They are along way from what blobby Johnson was elected on. Pretty sure they've broken multiple parts of the uncodified constitution.

They’re dodgy as hell. There’s nothing inherently undemocratic about changing leader, albeit multiple times takes the piss. Doesn’t change that we don’t live in a dictatorship now that after 13 years the Tories have discovered they can legislate

[Biffer]

Eh, isn't this the kind of thing we denounce nations like Russia and China for?

Mr Jenrick said it was his view that border control would be "far more straightforward if we [the UK] extricated ourselves from the web of international frameworks that have taken on near mythical status within government".

"One of the advantages of our uncodified constitution is the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament to create law," he added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67669609

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

We expect our politicians to produce laws that are legal. And to meet our international obligations (many of which we wrote)

[Paddington Bear]

Eh, isn't this the kind of thing we denounce nations like Russia and China for?



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67669609

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

We expect our politicians to produce laws that are legal. And to meet our international obligations (many of which we wrote)

We’ll have a general election next year where you can vote out a government if you think their conduct stinks, and if they end up with fewer seats than the opposition they’ll leave office. Hence we are not like Russia or North Korea

[petej]

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

Pushing democratically elected considering the leadership changes. They are along way from what blobby Johnson was elected on. Pretty sure they've broken multiple parts of the uncodified constitution.

They’re dodgy as hell. There’s nothing inherently undemocratic about changing leader, albeit multiple times takes the piss. Doesn’t change that we don’t live in a dictatorship now that after 13 years the Tories have discovered they can legislate

Not disagreeing with you - I was hinting at their dodgy behaviour. The impressive thing with Tories legislating is how bad they are at it. They seem to briefly try to legislate then realise it is complicated and are too lazy to try to understand the nasty detail and then blame the EU or some treaty or the civil service or on occasion UK businesses for it being difficult/complex.

[Paddington Bear]

Pushing democratically elected considering the leadership changes. They are along way from what blobby Johnson was elected on. Pretty sure they've broken multiple parts of the uncodified constitution.

They’re dodgy as hell. There’s nothing inherently undemocratic about changing leader, albeit multiple times takes the piss. Doesn’t change that we don’t live in a dictatorship now that after 13 years the Tories have discovered they can legislate

Not disagreeing with you - I was hinting at their dodgy behaviour. The impressive thing with Tories legislating is how bad they are at it. They seem to briefly try to legislate then realise it is complicated and are too lazy to try to understand the nasty detail and then blame the EU or some treaty or the civil service or on occasion UK businesses for it being difficult/complex.

Yeah I find their inability to legislate astonishing. The fact an increasing number of their MPs are just plain thick has to be a factor, but they do seem to be stuck in a loop that the law is some sort of immoveable object

[tabascoboy]

Eh, isn't this the kind of thing we denounce nations like Russia and China for?



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67669609

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

We expect our politicians to produce laws that are legal. And to meet our international obligations (many of which we wrote)

Exactly, and we know there are concerns that a law is being rushed through which will very specifically intend to remove the duty of public authority to examine if Human Rights are being ignored and/or breached. It also gives powers without review.

Yes. it has to go through Parliament - and one can hope this will be a allowed a free vote among Tories - but if they can get away with it once purely for the sake of expedience what is to stop this or any other future government doing the same?

[Paddington Bear]

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

We expect our politicians to produce laws that are legal. And to meet our international obligations (many of which we wrote)

Exactly, and we know there are concerns that a law is being rushed through which will very specifically intend to remove the duty of public authority to examine if Human Rights are being ignored and/or breached. It also gives powers without review.

Yes. it has to go through Parliament - and one can hope this will be a allowed a free vote among Tories - but if they can get away with it once purely for the sake of expedience what is to stop this or any other future government doing the same?

Parliament is sovereign. The remedy for poor government is a general election. This is not undemocratic. Judges being able to strike down laws, however…

[_Os_]

There was a lot wrong in that Jenrick interview on Kuenssberg (much more than that quote, British values/immigration/pro-Palestine protests all being conflated into one thing, was a total mess), Mr.Bear is obviously correct that doesn't make the UK the same as Russia or China.

The problem is the rules the UK uses for its democracy aren't working that well in practice. The legislature and executive are already fused, "parliamentary sovereignty" in practice normally means "PM sovereignty". The UK in practice has a quasi presidential system, but one where the parliament can still sometimes crush the president (something Sunak has put himself in danger of). There's quite a lot coming out of the Covid inquiry about how hollowed out things are, Cummings basically described cabinet government as a charade for TV cameras. Some Tories seem to want the judiciary to undergo the same fusing. At the level Jenrick is talking about the courts interpret the laws which parliament makes, if Jenrick's government is losing court cases it's because the government is incompetent and/or they're trying to do impossible things (Sunak's arrogance got the better of him on Rwanda he ignored the advice of lawyers), if they make laws which contradict other laws they put the courts in a position where the courts have to decide.

Quite a lot of the UK's famous unwritten constitution (or uncodified constitution, whichever you prefer) depends on those manning it being competent enough to avoid exposing these shortcomings/pitfalls/contradictions, rather than charging straight into the elephant traps so that they can scapegoat the judiciary/civil service/"the blob" for their own failings. Which can only degrade trust in democracy generally.

Back to Jenrick's "extricated ourselves from the web of international frameworks that have taken on near mythical status within government" (when he says "have taken on near mythical status" he means its law in the UK and not a myth), the UK could do the Brexit trick again. But that would not be a good move, if it were North Korea and Cuba would be the best places to live rather than countries which are at the heart of a "web of international frameworks". People like Jenrick are just too stupid/arrogant/ideological/self serving (take your pick) to care about how their work impacts people in the real world. They act like "parliamentary sovereignty" means they can decide reality itself, which makes sense if you understand the entire world as the next news cycle only. The Rwanda scheme started life as Big Dog wanting some headlines in the next news cycle. It has now become a test of the UK's sovereignty or something equally mad, the Rwanda scheme has no capacity to do much even if it became a real thing, it cannot clear a backlog of 130k asylum seekers.

One of the famous conventions of the famous unwritten constitution, is the government is supposed to implement its manifesto and if they go outside of that the Lords stops them. The Rwanda scheme is well outside of anything anyone has voted for. So you can expect to see lots of talk about "the Rwanda scheme is the will of the people" and "Rwanda is what people wanted when they voted Brexit" etc (Gullis has already stated this). Absolutely no one will say "this wasn't in your 2019 manifesto". Another problem with the UK's rules is almost no one understands them, even as they're being broken and new conventions/rules are being made. You can now get elected and do anything you like once elected it is "the will of the people", I'm sure Tories won't deeply regret this in time ...

[Paddington Bear]

All states are only as good as the people who run them, it’s why so many countries with codified constitutions fall apart.

‘PM sovereignty’ is just nonsense - a PM is only as strong as the majority they command. See Theresa May.

And it isn’t convention that the Lords smack down things outside the manifesto, it’s that they’re supposed to facilitate manifesto commitments but have no obligation to do so outside of that.

[_Os_]

All states are only as good as the people who run them, it’s why so many countries with codified constitutions fall apart.

The structure matters too, different structures can produce different outcomes with the same sort of people manning both and the same sort of voters, as multiple countries next to eachother show. Part of the problem in the UK is there's a blindness around when things fail, instead anything that happens is just seen as part of the system working. In a codified system something like a referendum would have set rules around when they can happen and under what circumstances, on what subjects they can be on and what they cannot be on, thresholds for motions to pass (super majority? all regions passing the motion?). It's really unlikely in a codified system a referendum could happen on essentially core parts of the constitution, on a simple majority, without the consent of all regions or a majority of regions for it to pass, with that referendum being "advisory" but assuming a status far beyond that. That happened in the UK, the fallout was quite catastrophic and continues.

All the proroguing parliament/lying to the queen stuff before the 2019 election was similar, it probably doesn't happen in a country like the UK but with some codified rules.

‘PM sovereignty’ is just nonsense - a PM is only as strong as the majority they command. See Theresa May.

There's been a lot written about how the UK system is becoming presidential. It was obvious enough under Blair and his advisors, but there was still a real intellectual contest at cabinet level then (Brown etc). This criticism first (that I'm aware of) came from the right when they were out of power under New Labour. It has since become ridiculous. First the party is purged of MP candidates that disagree with the leader, then the cabinet is stuffed with supporters of the PM and they do what they're told or they must resign, then there's still all the unelected advisors of the PM and the thinktanks all making policy. Then the party itself is whipped when there are parliamentary votes, this is without getting into statutory instruments. It's mostly the executive/PM dictating, the parliamentary sovereignty stuff is rare (and in its true form is about a time before parties or whipping). FPTP creates single party majorities most elections, it's not going to be often a PM is shitting it over their majority, they basically have to have been so bad that they've made that situation arise or have been unlucky enough to get a bad set of cards to play with (May was both).

The Truss mini budget was done without the cabinet even knowing the details beforehand (mere MPs knew as much as anyone watching on TV), but when it happened the cabinet/MPs were all supportive, until it blew up and there was a chance to push out the incumbent Truss team and to take their places. That shouldn't be happening, but it does.

And it isn’t convention that the Lords smack down things outside the manifesto, it’s that they’re supposed to facilitate manifesto commitments but have no obligation to do so outside of that.

A bit to-may-to to-mah-to, but I take the point.

[tabascoboy]

Seems to be quite a bit of speculation that MPs in various parties may well vote tactically to allow the key vote to pass tomorrow - on the basis that Sunak is such a lame duck that keeping him in place as PM up to the GE is worth the risk of a temporary boost in popularity if the bill passes.

No doubt the Rwanda plan and it's likely lack of real impact when weighed against the cost is seen as a strong target for attack in the next few months

[Sandstorm]

Seems to be quite a bit of speculation that MPs in various parties may well vote tactically to allow the key vote to pass tomorrow - on the basis that Sunak is such a lame duck that keeping him in place as PM up to the GE is worth the risk of a temporary boost in popularity if the bill passes.

No doubt the Rwanda plan and it's likely lack of real impact when weighed against the cost is seen as a strong target for attack in the next few months

Can easily see another African country or two stepping up to the money plate.

"Hi Mr Sunak, Patrice Talon from Benin here. We'll take another 1500 off you, mate"

[Biffer]

A democratically elected parliament making laws? No

We expect our politicians to produce laws that are legal. And to meet our international obligations (many of which we wrote)

We’ll have a general election next year where you can vote out a government if you think their conduct stinks, and if they end up with fewer seats than the opposition they’ll leave office. Hence we are not like Russia or North Korea

Not being Russia or North Korea isn't a high bar.

A government can do a lot of damage in five years, that's why the checks and balances of the judiciary and rule of law are in place. This idea that floats around that an elected government can do whatever it likes because it was elected is just so much bollocks.