Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Tichtheid]

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.

The Willow da Peeple thing really annoys me. They got 42% of the vote on a 62% turnout and got a huge majority, Labour got 40% and ended up with their worst election result since 1935, apparently.

Overall the Tories got around 29% of the vote. "Will of the people" my arse, it's the outcome of a stupid system perhaps, but it's surely not a mandate to override whatever checks and balances our system has in place in the shape of the Lords and the Judiciary.

[tabascoboy]

Sunak appears to be suffering the same selective memory recall failure in the enquiry that affected Johnson. Curious how two "high functioning" individuals in senior political positions manage to operate with such an amnesia relating to discussions over important matters of state. He also seems to have no idea what this "WhatsUp" thingy is and why messages have "gone missing".

They might well dislike each other but the employment of this shared strategy is curious when others like Hancock aren't joining in. Heaven forbid though that we might suggest collusion to pervert the course of the enquiry.

[Sandstorm]

Sunak appears to be suffering the same selective memory recall failure in the enquiry that affected Johnson. Curious how two "high functioning" individuals in senior political positions manage to operate with such an amnesia relating to discussions over important matters of state. He also seems to have no idea what this "WhatsUp" thingy is and why messages have "gone missing".

They might well dislike each other but the employment of this shared strategy is curious when others like Hancock aren't joining in. Heaven forbid though that we might suggest collusion to pervert the course of the enquiry.

"I can't recall..." gets the 1% off every time. The rest of us get laughed out of court and into an orange jump suit.

[salanya]

What's baffling is how they can't recall attending entire meetings or discussing topics of national importance, but they can quote certain conversations from months/years ago, word for word.

[dpedin]

Sunak appears to be suffering the same selective memory recall failure in the enquiry that affected Johnson. Curious how two "high functioning" individuals in senior political positions manage to operate with such an amnesia relating to discussions over important matters of state. He also seems to have no idea what this "WhatsUp" thingy is and why messages have "gone missing".

They might well dislike each other but the employment of this shared strategy is curious when others like Hancock aren't joining in. Heaven forbid though that we might suggest collusion to pervert the course of the enquiry.

"I can't recall..." gets the 1% off every time. The rest of us get laughed out of court and into an orange jump suit.

Their credibility is shot, everyone knows they are lying turds about their WhatsApp messages. Hopefully many of their messages will be picked up via message trails on others phones etc submitted in evidence. I also expect the Chair of the Enquiry to have a few things to say about the veracity of the evidence presented by individuals who have appeared and she, along with most of us, will believe the evidence presented by Whitty, Vallance and Van Tam before that of Sunak and Johnson. Remember that the questions being put by the KC is on the back of having trawled through reams of written evidence, copies of minutes, emails, what apps, etc and most of his questioning is about getting those being interviewed to confirm/deny in public what he already knows from the evidence. The KC will not be asking any questions for which he doesn't already know the answers, in many cases he is giving them enough rope to hang themselves. Most of the politicians and advisors don't come out of this with any redeeming features whatsoever.

It is going to be real fun when they get onto the PPE/Procurement module and there must be more than a few Tories and their mates shitting themselves having watched Keith KC in action. Hancock has already sought immunity from prosecution for giving evidence and I wouldnt be surprised if he or a few others try and seek a deal in order to avoid prosecution or be dealt with leniently in return for spilling the beans.

Does anyone know if Case will be questioned at some point in the future once he 'is well again'?

[Ovals]

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.

The Willow da Peeple thing really annoys me. They got 42% of the vote on a 62% turnout and got a huge majority, Labour got 40% and ended up with their worst election result since 1935, apparently.

Overall the Tories got around 29% of the vote. "Will of the people" my arse, it's the outcome of a stupid system perhaps, but it's surely not a mandate to override whatever checks and balances our system has in place in the shape of the Lords and the Judiciary.

You've got those stats very wrong for the 2019 election. 67% turnout. Tories 42.6%, Labour 32.2%. LD 11.5% - Don't disagree with you principle but the Tory % was the highest by any party since 1979. Under our system it was as genuine 'willow de peeple' as you're likely to get. Much as it annoys me !!

[Paddington Bear]

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.

The Willow da Peeple thing really annoys me. They got 42% of the vote on a 62% turnout and got a huge majority, Labour got 40% and ended up with their worst election result since 1935, apparently.

Overall the Tories got around 29% of the vote. "Will of the people" my arse, it's the outcome of a stupid system perhaps, but it's surely not a mandate to override whatever checks and balances our system has in place in the shape of the Lords and the Judiciary.

You've got those stats very wrong for the 2019 election. 67% turnout. Tories 42.6%, Labour 32.2%. LD 11.5% - Don't disagree with you principle but the Tory % was the highest by any party since 1979. Under our system it was as genuine 'willow de peeple' as you're likely to get. Much as it annoys me !!

Yes. If this government lacks legitimacy on that score where does that leave much of the New Labour era, the architecture of which we’re now told constitutes ‘democratic norms’?

[Tichtheid]

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.

The Willow da Peeple thing really annoys me. They got 42% of the vote on a 62% turnout and got a huge majority, Labour got 40% and ended up with their worst election result since 1935, apparently.

Overall the Tories got around 29% of the vote. "Will of the people" my arse, it's the outcome of a stupid system perhaps, but it's surely not a mandate to override whatever checks and balances our system has in place in the shape of the Lords and the Judiciary.

You've got those stats very wrong for the 2019 election. 67% turnout. Tories 42.6%, Labour 32.2%. LD 11.5% - Don't disagree with you principle but the Tory % was the highest by any party since 1979. Under our system it was as genuine 'willow de peeple' as you're likely to get. Much as it annoys me !!

Doh! I was reading figures for the election before 2019, my mistake.

However, 42.6% on a 67% turnout is still a little over 29% of the total electorate and is hardly a reflection of the will of the people.

13,966,454 voted Tory,

10,269,051 voted Labour
3,696,419 voted Lib Dem
1,242,380 voted SNP
800,000 voted Green
plus about another million votes for various other parties.


@Paddington. This isn't about New Labour, I don't recall them using the phrase Will of the People or attacking the judiciary. In fact they set up the Supreme Court and set up devolved governance in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff

I'm quite happy to talk about the Blair years for good or ill, and there was both, including a more presidential style of government, but their tenure ended a long time ago now

[C69]

If the ERG hate Rishi enough, he is gone tomorrow.

[Ovals]

The Willow da Peeple thing really annoys me. They got 42% of the vote on a 62% turnout and got a huge majority, Labour got 40% and ended up with their worst election result since 1935, apparently.

Overall the Tories got around 29% of the vote. "Will of the people" my arse, it's the outcome of a stupid system perhaps, but it's surely not a mandate to override whatever checks and balances our system has in place in the shape of the Lords and the Judiciary.

You've got those stats very wrong for the 2019 election. 67% turnout. Tories 42.6%, Labour 32.2%. LD 11.5% - Don't disagree with you principle but the Tory % was the highest by any party since 1979. Under our system it was as genuine 'willow de peeple' as you're likely to get. Much as it annoys me !!

Doh! I was reading figures for the election before 2019, my mistake.

However, 42.6% on a 67% turnout is still a little over 29% of the total electorate and is hardly a reflection of the will of the people.

13,966,454 voted Tory,

10,269,051 voted Labour
3,696,419 voted Lib Dem
1,242,380 voted SNP
800,000 voted Green
plus about another million votes for various other parties.


@Paddington. This isn't about New Labour, I don't recall them using the phrase Will of the People or attacking the judiciary. In fact they set up the Supreme Court and set up devolved governance in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff

I'm quite happy to talk about the Blair years for good or ill, and there was both, including a more presidential style of government, but their tenure ended a long time ago now

With our electoral system you can't base too much on the voting percentages - the FPTP sytem will always distort the %. As imprefect as it is, it does protect us from the rise of extreme 'populist' parties. and prevents parties like 'Reform' getting a foothold.

[TheNatalShark]

With our electoral system you can't base too much on the voting percentages - the FPTP sytem will always distort the %. As imprefect as it is, it does protect us from the rise of extreme 'populist' parties. and prevents parties like 'Reform' getting a foothold.

Obviously a wider discussion but we have to address these when they come up as FPTP is massive brain worms type stuff.

1. It is awfully undemocratic to deny people representation in parliament through gerrymandering FPTP.
2. The follow through is the nutjobs could take hold of the party as they have with Momentum and UKIP. If they had their own corner of the world to lampoon over they are less of a threat, see AfD being shut out of coalitions, and the lengths latest Dutch lot will have to go through to try coalition build.

[sockwithaticket]

I'm a big believer in PR, I think that the way the country votes should be accurately reflected in Parliament. As much as I revile their platforms, UKIP and now Reform reflect the views of a certain number of voters. That should be represented. If parties with problematic views are gaining traction we need to look at why that is rather than prevent voters from having their say.

Much of the rest of the developed world manages without FPTP and I think it's to our detriment that we don't join them.

[fishfoodie]

I'm a big believer in PR, I think that the way the country votes should be accurately reflected in Parliament. As much as I revile their platforms, UKIP and now Reform reflect the views of a certain number of voters. That should be represented. If parties with problematic views are gaining traction we need to look at why that is rather than prevent voters from having their say.

Much of the rest of the developed world manages without FPTP and I think it's to our detriment that we don't join them.

Yeah I'm the same, but you need to look carefully at what form of PR you want, & in that I don't like the list system versus the STV.

I think if you deny groups at the margins representation, by FPTP, they don't go away, they just get angrier, & more extreme.

PR also forces Political Parties to compromise, which is always a good idea; because if the Electorate didn't give you enough seats to have a majority, with the Manifesto you presented, they need to accept that simple fact that they don't have a mandate based simply on what they ran on.

[Tichtheid]

You've got those stats very wrong for the 2019 election. 67% turnout. Tories 42.6%, Labour 32.2%. LD 11.5% - Don't disagree with you principle but the Tory % was the highest by any party since 1979. Under our system it was as genuine 'willow de peeple' as you're likely to get. Much as it annoys me !!

Doh! I was reading figures for the election before 2019, my mistake.

However, 42.6% on a 67% turnout is still a little over 29% of the total electorate and is hardly a reflection of the will of the people.

13,966,454 voted Tory,

10,269,051 voted Labour
3,696,419 voted Lib Dem
1,242,380 voted SNP
800,000 voted Green
plus about another million votes for various other parties.


@Paddington. This isn't about New Labour, I don't recall them using the phrase Will of the People or attacking the judiciary. In fact they set up the Supreme Court and set up devolved governance in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff

I'm quite happy to talk about the Blair years for good or ill, and there was both, including a more presidential style of government, but their tenure ended a long time ago now

With our electoral system you can't base too much on the voting percentages - the FPTP sytem will always distort the %. As imprefect as it is, it does protect us from the rise of extreme 'populist' parties. and prevents parties like 'Reform' getting a foothold.

The specific point I was attacking was the assertion that having gained the votes of 29% of the total electorate, they claim their manoeuvres are "The will of the British people" whilst they ride roughshod over our conventions and processes, I'll add the portraying as "traitors" those who would oppose the undermining of those checks and balances.

I stand by my original point.

[Tichtheid]

I'm a big believer in PR, I think that the way the country votes should be accurately reflected in Parliament. As much as I revile their platforms, UKIP and now Reform reflect the views of a certain number of voters. That should be represented. If parties with problematic views are gaining traction we need to look at why that is rather than prevent voters from having their say.

Much of the rest of the developed world manages without FPTP and I think it's to our detriment that we don't join them.

Yeah I'm the same, but you need to look carefully at what form of PR you want, & in that I don't like the list system versus the STV.

I think if you deny groups at the margins representation, by FPTP, they don't go away, they just get angrier, & more extreme.

PR also forces Political Parties to compromise, which is always a good idea; because if the Electorate didn't give you enough seats to have a majority, with the Manifesto you presented, they need to accept that simple fact that they don't have a mandate based simply on what they ran on.

Yeah, having been against PR in the past, I'm in favour of it now. I think I've said before the the DUP's position of influence during the death-throws of John Major's government blew away the idea that fringe parties were kept at bay with FPTP. We've seen it more recently than that of course, too.

I think I'd favour a radical change to mandatory voting as well, though I think spoiled ballots should just be thrown away with no consequence. I'd also look closely at voting for 16 year olds.

[Sandstorm]

I'm a big believer in PR, I think that the way the country votes should be accurately reflected in Parliament. As much as I revile their platforms, UKIP and now Reform reflect the views of a certain number of voters. That should be represented. If parties with problematic views are gaining traction we need to look at why that is rather than prevent voters from having their say.

Much of the rest of the developed world manages without FPTP and I think it's to our detriment that we don't join them.

Yeah I'm the same, but you need to look carefully at what form of PR you want, & in that I don't like the list system versus the STV.

I think if you deny groups at the margins representation, by FPTP, they don't go away, they just get angrier, & more extreme.

PR also forces Political Parties to compromise, which is always a good idea; because if the Electorate didn't give you enough seats to have a majority, with the Manifesto you presented, they need to accept that simple fact that they don't have a mandate based simply on what they ran on.

Yeah, having been against PR in the past, I'm in favour of it now. I think I've said before the the DUP's position of influence during the death-throws of John Major's government blew away the idea that fringe parties were kept at bay with FPTP. We've seen it more recently than that of course, too.

I think I'd favour a radical change to mandatory voting as well, though I think spoiled ballots should just be thrown away with no consequence. I'd also look closely at voting for 16 year olds.

Oh, so close! Great points until your last sentence.

[Tichtheid]

Oh, so close! Great points until your last sentence.

I think it's something worth considering at least, I'd like to read some arguments either way on the idea

[fishfoodie]

I'm a big believer in PR, I think that the way the country votes should be accurately reflected in Parliament. As much as I revile their platforms, UKIP and now Reform reflect the views of a certain number of voters. That should be represented. If parties with problematic views are gaining traction we need to look at why that is rather than prevent voters from having their say.

Much of the rest of the developed world manages without FPTP and I think it's to our detriment that we don't join them.

Yeah I'm the same, but you need to look carefully at what form of PR you want, & in that I don't like the list system versus the STV.

I think if you deny groups at the margins representation, by FPTP, they don't go away, they just get angrier, & more extreme.

PR also forces Political Parties to compromise, which is always a good idea; because if the Electorate didn't give you enough seats to have a majority, with the Manifesto you presented, they need to accept that simple fact that they don't have a mandate based simply on what they ran on.

Yeah, having been against PR in the past, I'm in favour of it now. I think I've said before the the DUP's position of influence during the death-throws of John Major's government blew away the idea that fringe parties were kept at bay with FPTP. We've seen it more recently than that of course, too.

I think I'd favour a radical change to mandatory voting as well, though I think spoiled ballots should just be thrown away with no consequence. I'd also look closely at voting for 16 year olds.

I think I've said it before on this thread, but I'm a big fan of the comparatively new "Constitutional Convention", now being used in Ireland, to screen proposals for amendments to our Constitution.

There definitely are echo chambers in Political Parties, & SIGs, & before any major change goes before the actual electorate, there should be a process where proposals are put before a sample of the electorate, to determine if the proposal is actually worth the time & money, & if there are a number of proposals on the table, what are the priorities !

As it happens, reducing the voting age was one of the ones put before the convention several years ago, & while a number of Political parties were uber keen to get it on the next planned vote, when they spoke to actual voters, it came in last place, & we're now putting together a new set of amendments together to be voted upon, & guess what, it still won't be on the ballot !! I quote the septics on the one: "No taxation without representation !", & vice versa

Amendments are tricky; they have to be handled carefully, & the voters have to be prepared for them & handled very carefully.

One of the main reasons why I saw the Brexit vote was being insane was that it was happening at a time when the Government was very unpopular, & that carried over to Brexit vote, & also that you were asking a simple yes/no, on what was in reality a horrendously complex question !!!

The arseholes in the ERG used to point at Ireland & lie that we just kept on having Referendums until we got the right answer, but what actually happened was that we had Referendums at bad times, & the Government lost them because the anti side lied about what the Referendum was about, & once the exact same question was set to the Electorate, after proper education & clarification, the voters passed the Referendum.

If the UK is going to move more to PR, because you do actually have it in places; then you need to not just ask a Yes/No question & then let the next Government make a dogs dinner of it; instead you have a vote to reform Westminster voting, & that will be everything from how constituency boundaries are decided, to which voting system to use, & then pass the findings/recommendations to a citizens convention, so that they can help compose a question that you can actually have a plebiscite on.

[sockwithaticket]

Yeah I'm the same, but you need to look carefully at what form of PR you want, & in that I don't like the list system versus the STV.

I think if you deny groups at the margins representation, by FPTP, they don't go away, they just get angrier, & more extreme.

PR also forces Political Parties to compromise, which is always a good idea; because if the Electorate didn't give you enough seats to have a majority, with the Manifesto you presented, they need to accept that simple fact that they don't have a mandate based simply on what they ran on.

Yeah, having been against PR in the past, I'm in favour of it now. I think I've said before the the DUP's position of influence during the death-throws of John Major's government blew away the idea that fringe parties were kept at bay with FPTP. We've seen it more recently than that of course, too.

I think I'd favour a radical change to mandatory voting as well, though I think spoiled ballots should just be thrown away with no consequence. I'd also look closely at voting for 16 year olds.

Oh, so close! Great points until your last sentence.

I'm not particularly in favour of the idea, nor against it.

Theoretically a 16 or 17 year old could earn enough to pay tax. No taxation without representation as they say.

A depressingly large number of adults in this country cast votes having looked at basically nothing except a couple of Facebook posts or tabloid headlines if they even vote at all. 16 year olds wouldn't be substantially different.

There's also the argument that 16 year olds actually have a stake in the future to an extent that many voting age adults don't.

[sockwithaticket]

I'm a big believer in PR, I think that the way the country votes should be accurately reflected in Parliament. As much as I revile their platforms, UKIP and now Reform reflect the views of a certain number of voters. That should be represented. If parties with problematic views are gaining traction we need to look at why that is rather than prevent voters from having their say.

Much of the rest of the developed world manages without FPTP and I think it's to our detriment that we don't join them.

Yeah I'm the same, but you need to look carefully at what form of PR you want, & in that I don't like the list system versus the STV.

I think if you deny groups at the margins representation, by FPTP, they don't go away, they just get angrier, & more extreme.

PR also forces Political Parties to compromise, which is always a good idea; because if the Electorate didn't give you enough seats to have a majority, with the Manifesto you presented, they need to accept that simple fact that they don't have a mandate based simply on what they ran on.

Yup. I'm pretty convinced that if UKIP had managed to land a handful of MPs down the years then the boil would have been lanced and we wouldn't have gotten as far as the Brexit referendum.

it also makes parties have to work for votes. There are far too many areas that are functionally rotten boroughs with how safe their seats are and that discourages participation in those areas from any voter with a different political leaning. If everyone knew that their vote would actually count towards parliamentary representation, I suspect Labour and the Tories would see a lot of voters leave them and they'd have to do something about their platforms to try and regain them or accept that many voters had actually gone for good to somewhere that's a more natural political home for them. I'd imagine voter turnout would be much greater if you knew that casting your vote for the Greens in a Tory stronghold was no longer a waste of time.

I'm a big fan of compromise. We've seen some of the dogshit legislation the government has managed to pass with a commanding majority, despite the best efforts of the lords and courts to resist the greater excesses. It shouldn't be down to them. If that stuff has to get past multiple other parties in parliament to become law, then it gets changed into something more sensible in the first place or during negotiations, perhaps doesn't even get tabled in the first place.

[fishfoodie]

I'm a big believer in PR, I think that the way the country votes should be accurately reflected in Parliament. As much as I revile their platforms, UKIP and now Reform reflect the views of a certain number of voters. That should be represented. If parties with problematic views are gaining traction we need to look at why that is rather than prevent voters from having their say.

Much of the rest of the developed world manages without FPTP and I think it's to our detriment that we don't join them.

Yeah I'm the same, but you need to look carefully at what form of PR you want, & in that I don't like the list system versus the STV.

I think if you deny groups at the margins representation, by FPTP, they don't go away, they just get angrier, & more extreme.

PR also forces Political Parties to compromise, which is always a good idea; because if the Electorate didn't give you enough seats to have a majority, with the Manifesto you presented, they need to accept that simple fact that they don't have a mandate based simply on what they ran on.

Yup. I'm pretty convinced that if UKIP had managed to land a handful of MPs down the years then the boil would have been lanced and we wouldn't have gotten as far as the Brexit referendum.

it also makes parties have to work for votes. There are far too many areas that are functionally rotten boroughs with how safe their seats are and that discourages participation in those areas from any voter with a different political leaning. If everyone knew that their vote would actually count towards parliamentary representation, I suspect Labour and the Tories would see a lot of voters leave them and they'd have to do something about their platforms to try and regain them or accept that many voters had actually gone for good to somewhere that's a more natural political home for them. I'd imagine voter turnout would be much greater if you knew that casting your vote for the Greens in a Tory stronghold was no longer a waste of time.

I'm a big fan of compromise. We've seen some of the dogshit legislation the government has managed to pass with a commanding majority, despite the best efforts of the lords and courts to resist the greater excesses. It shouldn't be down to them. If that stuff has to get past multiple other parties in parliament to become law, then it gets changed into something more sensible in the first place or during negotiations, perhaps doesn't even get tabled in the first place.

This is why I'm a fan of STV, when you get a 4/5-Seat constituency, the Parties have to think about that group that can get 8-10% of the 1st preference vote, because if they know that percentage carries thru in their own voters, they also know that that candidate can hoover up enough 2nd/3rd preference votes to pick up the last seat. Its political nerd heaven, they have to manage the candidate, the vote, the message, tactical voting, the whole bit, & you can still end up with your pants around your ankles & the soap at your feet.

[lemonhead]

I'm a big believer in PR, I think that the way the country votes should be accurately reflected in Parliament. As much as I revile their platforms, UKIP and now Reform reflect the views of a certain number of voters. That should be represented. If parties with problematic views are gaining traction we need to look at why that is rather than prevent voters from having their say.

Much of the rest of the developed world manages without FPTP and I think it's to our detriment that we don't join them.

Yeah I'm the same, but you need to look carefully at what form of PR you want, & in that I don't like the list system versus the STV.

I think if you deny groups at the margins representation, by FPTP, they don't go away, they just get angrier, & more extreme.

PR also forces Political Parties to compromise, which is always a good idea; because if the Electorate didn't give you enough seats to have a majority, with the Manifesto you presented, they need to accept that simple fact that they don't have a mandate based simply on what they ran on.

The other question for me, if people's vote actually mattered and had real agency would there be as many heading for lunatic fringe parties?

Some will share those views but as you say a great many others may simply feel marginalised and ignored. Rarely ends well.

[_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.

When the Tories said there was no additional Rwanda costs, which actually meant a further two payments of £100m and £50m. They actually meant after that £290m has been paid, there's an additional two instalments of an undisclosed amount that will then be paid. Could be looking at £400m+ before operating costs.

[_Os_]

The official UK government line that's being parroted, is Sunak's line that Rwanda is spreading the rule of law to the UK. Incredible.

Geoffrey Cox: ‘If you go further we will have problems with the Rwandan government’.

Tom Pursglove (legal migration minister): "The Rwandan's have been very clear with us... that we cannot be in breach of our International obligations.".

[Lobby]

The Willow da Peeple thing really annoys me. They got 42% of the vote on a 62% turnout and got a huge majority, Labour got 40% and ended up with their worst election result since 1935, apparently.

Overall the Tories got around 29% of the vote. "Will of the people" my arse, it's the outcome of a stupid system perhaps, but it's surely not a mandate to override whatever checks and balances our system has in place in the shape of the Lords and the Judiciary.

You've got those stats very wrong for the 2019 election. 67% turnout. Tories 42.6%, Labour 32.2%. LD 11.5% - Don't disagree with you principle but the Tory % was the highest by any party since 1979. Under our system it was as genuine 'willow de peeple' as you're likely to get. Much as it annoys me !!

Doh! I was reading figures for the election before 2019, my mistake.

However, 42.6% on a 67% turnout is still a little over 29% of the total electorate and is hardly a reflection of the will of the people.

13,966,454 voted Tory,

10,269,051 voted Labour
3,696,419 voted Lib Dem
1,242,380 voted SNP
800,000 voted Green
plus about another million votes for various other parties.


@Paddington. This isn't about New Labour, I don't recall them using the phrase Will of the People or attacking the judiciary. In fact they set up the Supreme Court and set up devolved governance in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff

I'm quite happy to talk about the Blair years for good or ill, and there was both, including a more presidential style of government, but their tenure ended a long time ago now

One of the points from the 2019 election was that, despite the claims that Johnson was a massive vote winner for the Tories and much more popular than May, the Tory vote hardly changed at all between 2017 and 2019.

In 2017 Theresa May's Tories secured 42.3% with 13.6 million votes. Johnson's Tories in 2019 secured 43.6% with 13.9 million votes. The reason Johnson gained a large majority in 2019 with just an additional 300,000 votes was the collapse in the Labour vote from 40% to 32%.

[sockwithaticket]

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.

When the Tories said there was no additional Rwanda costs, which actually meant a further two payments of £100m and £50m. They actually meant after that £290m has been paid, there's an additional two instalments of an undisclosed amount that will then be paid. Could be looking at £400m+ before operating costs.

The whole thing is insane in general, but even if you take it on face value that deporting migrants to Rwanda is a good idea in principle, the amount of money being spent for the tiny number of migrants it will handle is bonkers. They'd have been better off using the money to hire more processing staff in the UK.

[_Os_]

The talk of PR on the thread and people not being represented etc. It seems obvious the people no longer represented are those on the centre right, Nick Boles has openly said he's voting Labour in protest. I know other former Tory MPs have said they're voting labour, but cannot recall which (Ken Clarke has said very positive things about Labour, but I'm not sure he's declared for them).

The 2019 GE cooked Tory brains, their interpretation of it (most of the members and the a lot of the MPs) is that it's possible to win a massive majority from the right, that the UK is a hard right country, and there's no need to bother with the centre ground. That sort of thinking takes a lot of heavy defeats to die. This is why after Johnson they went to Truss, and once Sunak came in all the nut jobs started circling to remove him (the far right Tory MP factions are now calling themselves "the five families" like the mafia) because they think he's a "socialist". Those still in the Tory party that should be fighting for more moderate/sensible/centre ground outcomes, are all wimps.

It's entirely possible that after the Tories lose, without the constraint of needing to be electable they become more crazy, like Labour in the 1980s. They're already in the game of trying to outbid Reform and some of them are open to Farage as leader.

[shaggy]

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.

When the Tories said there was no additional Rwanda costs, which actually meant a further two payments of £100m and £50m. They actually meant after that £290m has been paid, there's an additional two instalments of an undisclosed amount that will then be paid. Could be looking at £400m+ before operating costs.

The whole thing is insane in general, but even if you take it on face value that deporting migrants to Rwanda is a good idea in principle, the amount of money being spent for the tiny number of migrants it will handle is bonkers. They'd have been better off using the money to hire more processing staff in the UK.

It’s all irrelevant. The mass migration door is well and truly open and the only way it will be stemmed is through massive fiscal transfers to the originating countries to remove the need to move for a better life.

[tabascoboy]

When the Tories said there was no additional Rwanda costs, which actually meant a further two payments of £100m and £50m. They actually meant after that £290m has been paid, there's an additional two instalments of an undisclosed amount that will then be paid. Could be looking at £400m+ before operating costs.

The whole thing is insane in general, but even if you take it on face value that deporting migrants to Rwanda is a good idea in principle, the amount of money being spent for the tiny number of migrants it will handle is bonkers. They'd have been better off using the money to hire more processing staff in the UK.

It’s all irrelevant. The mass migration door is well and truly open and the only way it will be stemmed is through massive fiscal transfers to the originating countries to remove the need to move for a better life.

And if even some of the worst fears regarding climate change come true it's only going to increase if certain areas become more or less uninhabitable through a combination of wars, water deficit, famine or other natural disaster. Gone are the days when large numbers of people had to stay put keep hope and simply try to survive for things to improve, traffickers are more ruthless and organized than ever.

[shaggy]

The whole thing is insane in general, but even if you take it on face value that deporting migrants to Rwanda is a good idea in principle, the amount of money being spent for the tiny number of migrants it will handle is bonkers. They'd have been better off using the money to hire more processing staff in the UK.

It’s all irrelevant. The mass migration door is well and truly open and the only way it will be stemmed is through massive fiscal transfers to the originating countries to remove the need to move for a better life.

And if even some of the worst fears regarding climate change come true it's only going to increase if certain areas become more or less uninhabitable through a combination of wars, water deficit, famine or other natural disaster. Gone are the days when large numbers of people had to stay put keep hope and simply try to survive for things to improve, traffickers are more ruthless and organized than ever.

Probably need Refry here to lighten the mood.

[yermum]

Children of men looking more and more prophetic.

[TedMaul]

Meanwhile Baroness Mone has released a snivelling self-serving video whilst she wriggles like an overfed worm in a corset on a moral hook.

[_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.

When the Tories said there was no additional Rwanda costs, which actually meant a further two payments of £100m and £50m. They actually meant after that £290m has been paid, there's an additional two instalments of an undisclosed amount that will then be paid. Could be looking at £400m+ before operating costs.

The whole thing is insane in general, but even if you take it on face value that deporting migrants to Rwanda is a good idea in principle, the amount of money being spent for the tiny number of migrants it will handle is bonkers. They'd have been better off using the money to hire more processing staff in the UK.

All it's about is the frontpages of the Express/Sun/Mail/Telegraph having a photo of a plane going to Rwanda and the title "FUCK OFF BACK TO WHERE YOU COME FROM!!".

That's the entirety of what it's about.

It's not supposed to make any sense, if it costs shitloads for very little the Tories don't care, if the plane returns with broken refugees from the DRC wars that Rwanda fuels the Tories don't care. Tory brains have been cooked by Brexit, including supposed "moderates" like Sunak. One of the very few things Farage is correct about is it doesn't seem plausible that Sunak is a Brexiter, his constituency was pro-Brexit though and he picked wisely. Tories like Sunak think they have the cheat codes to UK politics, it goes something like this: "give up all your morals or even just basic rationality, it is foolish to try and act in the best interests of the UK, panda to whatever crazy thing people seem to want and do so without even thinking, then you will get a majority like Big Dog". Sunak is not a normal person, he's a billionaire that gets helicopter rides like other people catch a bus. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Sunak has such a low opinion of the UK electorate that he views those voting for him as literal savages.

[PornDog]

The whole thing is insane in general, but even if you take it on face value that deporting migrants to Rwanda is a good idea in principle, the amount of money being spent for the tiny number of migrants it will handle is bonkers. They'd have been better off using the money to hire more processing staff in the UK.

This has always been the case.

I've always assumed their motives to be twofold - 1. delay the processing as long as possible because too high a percentage of applicants would actually be legally eligible for asylum; and 2. make the entire process as physically and mentally tortuous (literally) as possible on the applicants as a means to discourage future legitimate asylum claims.

Cunts are gonna cunt!


As previously stated, the only real way to combat the migration crisis is to have a much more equitable world, which lets face it, is unlikely to happen without Dr. Guillotin's invention making a reappearance!

[dpedin]

The whole thing is insane in general, but even if you take it on face value that deporting migrants to Rwanda is a good idea in principle, the amount of money being spent for the tiny number of migrants it will handle is bonkers. They'd have been better off using the money to hire more processing staff in the UK.

This has always been the case.

I've always assumed their motives to be twofold - 1. delay the processing as long as possible because too high a percentage of applicants would actually be legally eligible for asylum; and 2. make the entire process as physically and mentally tortuous (literally) as possible on the applicants as a means to discourage future legitimate asylum claims.

Cunts are gonna cunt!


As previously stated, the only real way to combat the migration crisis is to have a much more equitable world, which lets face it, is unlikely to happen without Dr. Guillotin's invention making a reappearance!

Rwanda is the new Brexit - it is just a vehicle for the Tories to hang all their racist anti EU crap on and a call to arms of their racist Little Englander voters . They need a target, a foreign enemy, someone to blame everything on and to distract us all for the complete shitshow they have made of the economy, social services, Covid, PPE crookedness, etc. It is also a vehicle for attacking the ECHR and all that stands for - they are desperate to deregulate and to pawn off the remaining social services, including the NHS, to all their big corporate mates. Dismantling the UK interconnectedness to EU and international laws is a key step in making all this happen. Rwanda, illegal immigrants and 'stop the boats' are all just vacuous slogans about a fictitious enemy of the state that they are desperate to have so they can all rally around the Union Jack and spout puerile Make Britain Great again shite.

The current Tory infighting is just plain made up nonsense and it is all about keeping them and this agenda in the headlines It is all about managing the national debate and making them all seem as desperate to fight off the 'foreign invasion' and all they are arguing about is how extreme they need to be and gives them a chance to slag off Labour for being all woke and weak. We, with the help of the UK press, are being played by the current Gov and they are using our cash to do this. £300m on Rwanda is pocket money compared to how much they think they will gain by staying in power and pushing their populist, deregulation agenda.

What they have managed to achieve is to shift the agenda, get the discussion going about 'illegal immigration' and how bad it is whilst legal immigration is sky high mainly due to Brexit and the loss of the valuable EU workforce in the last few years. Now they are attacking legal immigrants for 'playing the system' that they designed and implemented post Brexit and fully knew we needed high immigration to compensate for the loss of the EU workforce.

We are all being played guys, the Gov clearly thinks we are all mugs and can't join the dots with their current strategy to stay in power and are happy to distract us with 'Stop the Boats' whilst they get on with the job of deregulation, running down public services and the NHS, privatising essential services, running up largest ever UK debt and creating Freeports and Charter cities which they will sell off to their dodgy big corporation mates. It has also been an excellent cover for some of the Covid Enquiry interviews where the 'Big Dog' and the 'Head Boy' were found to be IT incoherent twats who were both suffering form early onset dementia and severe memory loss.

The sooner this bunch of populist, racist charlatans are gone the better, unfortunately the damage they have done over the past 14 years will take decades to recover from!

[Sandstorm]

We, with the help of the UK press, are being played by the current Gov and they are using our cash to do this.

This is the real issue in the UK. The Press are absolute wankers, who are more corrupt and/or incompetent than any MP in Parliament.

[tabascoboy]

Tory group put three options to Sunak as he works the phones

Chris Mason
Political editor
BBC

I am told at their meeting in Downing Street with the prime minister, Danny Kruger - the co-chair of New Conservatives group of Tory MPs - told Rishi Sunak he had three options:

• Pull the vote tonight

• Make clear he would accept "significant" amendments in the new year if it passes

• Press on regardless

The New Conservatives believe there is sufficient anger on the Tory backbenches that the government can be defeated. "There are more than 29 Conservative MPs who are very, very concerned about this,” is how one source put it.

But, but, but: do they decide to vote against later, or abstain? And were some won around by the prime minister?

The European Research Group will meet at 17:00 to decide what they are planning to do. The New Conservatives are expected to be at that meeting too.

Meanwhile, the prime minister continues to make phone calls, and speak to people in person. No 10 argue they want to "keep listening and keep talking" but also say they have limited room for manoeuvre.

The persuading, the arguing, the deciding continues.

[sockwithaticket]

The whole thing is insane in general, but even if you take it on face value that deporting migrants to Rwanda is a good idea in principle, the amount of money being spent for the tiny number of migrants it will handle is bonkers. They'd have been better off using the money to hire more processing staff in the UK.

This has always been the case.

I've always assumed their motives to be twofold - 1. delay the processing as long as possible because too high a percentage of applicants would actually be legally eligible for asylum; and 2. make the entire process as physically and mentally tortuous (literally) as possible on the applicants as a means to discourage future legitimate asylum claims.

Cunts are gonna cunt!

As previously stated, the only real way to combat the migration crisis is to have a much more equitable world, which lets face it, is unlikely to happen without Dr. Guillotin's invention making a reappearance!

Well, yes, there are very few problems in the UK right now that couldn't have been solved by investment rather than cuts and privatisation that siphons money from the public purse.

I'd add 3. Tory donors and mates making money running the detention facilities/hotels where migrants are held for eye-watering sums per day e.g. Serco

The only civilised and ethical way to curb migration is to drastically reduce push factors from points of origin. There are certainly other means, though we're quite distant from the socio-political environment for them at this stage.

[_Os_]

The MPs have started the debate the vote is tonight many hours away. The PM is fighting off a revolt from the right because the PM promised them impossible shit and staked everything on it. Tory far right factions have given themselves silly names and have formed a party within a party. Mark Francois is giving press conferences. Ian Dunt is posting live commentary on the debate in an already massive Twitter thread.

No it is not 2018 or 2019.

[_Os_]

Ian Dunt is posting live commentary on the debate in an already massive Twitter thread.

He has a way with words ... "will of the people = Brexit shit-filled nappy".