NPR

C69 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:59 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:38 am

C69 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:22 amRwanda

What with the shambles in taking in Ukranian refugees and now this
Makes you proud to be British

I am Welsh.
I don't consider myself British a bit like most Ukranians not considering themselves Russian

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:57 am These people.

The UK moves beyond dumping its toxic waste onto 3rd world countries to dumping its "waste" human beings in a similar manner. This has shades of when the UK decided it was going to create a homeland for the Jews............ in Uganda.

And then you have this c**t
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-crit ... s-12589153

petej wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:12 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:57 am These people.

The UK moves beyond dumping its toxic waste onto 3rd world countries to dumping its "waste" human beings in a similar manner. This has shades of when the UK decided it was going to create a homeland for the Jews............ in Uganda.

And then you have this c**t
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-crit ... s-12589153

There are over 300 Tory mps but it is always the same 50-60 or so morons who get on the news

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:16 am

petej wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:12 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:57 am These people.

The UK moves beyond dumping its toxic waste onto 3rd world countries to dumping its "waste" human beings in a similar manner. This has shades of when the UK decided it was going to create a homeland for the Jews............ in Uganda.

And then you have this c**t
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-crit ... s-12589153

There are over 300 Tory mps but it is always the same 50-60 or so morons who get on the news

I suspect this is no accident - if you're a decent backbench MP with no massive ministerial ambitions why would you want to go on TV all the time?

Related to why Fabricant is always on TV - I know a few people talk of the 'Toby Young rule'. I.e. Toby Young is always on TV because when producers ring round for commentators he always says yes regardless of expertise, whereas a lot of people with perhaps more interesting things to say will say no unless they are confident they know the subject well.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:22 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:16 am

petej wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:12 am
There are over 300 Tory mps but it is always the same 50-60 or so morons who get on the news

I suspect this is no accident - if you're a decent backbench MP with no massive ministerial ambitions why would you want to go on TV all the time?

Related to why Fabricant is always on TV - I know a few people talk of the 'Toby Young rule'. I.e. Toby Young is always on TV because when producers ring round for commentators he always says yes regardless of expertise, whereas a lot of people with perhaps more interesting things to say will say no unless they are confident they know the subject well.

If people know your name, I'd guess you're more likely to get voted for bigger jobs than if no one knows your name.

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 6:42 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 10:19 pm

C69 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:31 pm
Bet you will still vote Tory again

Without a doubt! Least worst option!!

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:41 am

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 6:42 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 10:19 pm

Without a doubt! Least worst option!!

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

Sadly there are many who think like OS. I can't understand it. The idea that Labour or the Lib Dems could possibly be worse than this shower of bumbling cunts just doesn't compute. It's a fantasy the voter base cling to in order to justify continually voting against their personal interests and those of the country as a whole I guess.

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:45 am Rwanda!

This must be the biggest deadest cat bounce ever!

This shameful, disgusting Gov will do anything to deflect attention from the criminal acts perpetrated by our PM, Chancellor and the rest of No10. This is in effect a clarion call to all the jingoistic xenophobes, racists and right wing ultras, a declaration that their nazi policies are safe in the hands of the current Gov and that they will do anything they ask for to get their vote. Already they are out on the media trying to justify breaking international law and conventions. I wonder how many white male asylum seekers will get sent to Rwanda. I honestly can't tell you how utterly disgusted I am with this bunch of cunts, and I use that word advisedly!

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:41 am

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 6:42 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 10:19 pm

Without a doubt! Least worst option!!

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

Sadly there are many who think like OS. I can't understand it. The idea that Labour or the Lib Dems could possibly be worse than this shower of bumbling cunts just doesn't compute. It's a fantasy the voter base cling to in order to justify continually voting against their personal interests and those of the country as a whole I guess.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:15 am

Labour and the Lib Dems will come across to many as not merely being worse but much worse because of there alignment with those who label woman as cadavers with fuckholes.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:02 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:41 am

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 6:42 am

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction

Sadly there are many who think like OS. I can't understand it. The idea that Labour or the Lib Dems could possibly be worse than this shower of bumbling cunts just doesn't compute. It's a fantasy the voter base cling to in order to justify continually voting against their personal interests and those of the country as a whole I guess.

This is what this bunch of crooks, spivs, liars and charlatans rely on, they know that a budgie in a blue rosette would get the votes they need. That is why that creature Rees Mogg harps on about “one great, large, independent body that judges whether what is done is right or wrong and that’s the British people”.

They can do whatever the fuck they want because they know that if they can con 40% of the voters they will gain a large majority and keep getting away with it.

I don't think the term "bumbling" is appropriate by the way, it implies incompetence, I think they've been quite good at achieving their objectives, the Tories almost always are.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:27 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:15 am

Labour and the Lib Dems will come across to many as not merely being worse but much worse because of there alignment with those who label woman as cadavers with fuckholes.

Who did this?

I didn't want to google the phrase, but I did and it came up with no matches, thankfully.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:32 am
True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:47 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:32 am
True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:51 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:47 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:32 am
True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

Oh yeah we are fully in the throes of that process. When I say incomprehensible I mean I can't understand why anyone would think giving money to private capital is preferable to having things like the NHS and our rail network being run by the state with the benefit to the populace first and foremost in their design. My brain just doesn't go to a place where rewarding shareholders and maybe getting a place on a board somewhere is more important. The justification is often that the state is subject to gross inefficiency and needs the business minded to run it properly, but all we ever seem to get are spiralling costs and deterioration of service when things are placed into the hands of the market.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:55 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:51 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:47 am


I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

Oh yeah we are fully in the throes of that process. When I say incomprehensible I mean I can't understand why anyone would think giving money to private capital is preferable to having things like the NHS and our rail network being run by the state with the benefit to the populace first and foremost in their design. My brain just doesn't go to a place where rewarding shareholders and maybe getting a place on a board somewhere is more important. The justification is often that the state is subject to gross inefficiency and needs the business minded to run it properly, but all we ever seem to get are spiralling costs and deterioration of service when things are placed into the hands of the market.

I agree, and it's fucking laughable in the most gallows humour way when you see rail and energy privatised here and sold off to be run by French, German and Italian state-owned companies

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:47 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:32 am
True, it's a mistake to think that most, if not all, of the ill effects we experience as a result of Tory policy are anything other than intended. The objectives are just incomprehensible to anyone who wants functional public services and an economy that works for society rather than against it.Though there is certainly incompetence around, the likes of Raab, Truss, Johnson and Grayling certainly fit the descriptor.

I wonder if those mentioned are useful idiots, rather than incompetents? Johnson's image is entirely manufactured and he is a shite PM, so I'm torn on which is a better descriptor.

On public services,
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky,

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:58 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:11 pm

The gasps are the producers realising the BBC will be sold off to the next rapacious capitalist for spare and revenues when mad Nad sees it.

That’s more Partridge than Partridge

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:32 am According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:59 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:32 am According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I just read that they have secured 50 hotel rooms for the project….

Reading some comments it’s various places it’s not a hugely unpopular plan

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:32 am According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:43 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:32 am According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I can see it happening.

There's been other countries the UK have tried to do this with. Albania and Ghana from memory, the UK government jumped the gun both times and were publicly told to fuck off by those countries (that were probably just nodding along to the crazy plans in private, with no intention of committing to anything).

Rwanda isn't like Ghana. Ghana is a democracy that has a turnover of parties and presidents. Rwanda isn't like that, it's an authoritarian dictatorship with an incredibly thin veneer of democracy, this is different to a flawed democracy with a low/no turnover of parties and/or presidents, it's a completely potemkin "democracy" where no democracy exists. Rwanda is ruled by the 10% Tutsi minority, as in the president for the last 22 years is a Tutsi (with 99% of the vote in presidential elections), the ruling party is Tutsi dominated, affirmative action works to benefit Tutsis (in government jobs and university places etc), the rebel groups Rwanda backs in the DRC are always Tutsi. It's a Tutsi junta.

Such a regime needs to find credibility and countries willing to support it. They've struggled fining this in Africa, this goes all the way back to their role in the Second Congo War. So they need outside support if the Hutus ever come for them again (which given enough time, they will, because the whole Tutsi junta thing). What this scheme gives Rwanda, is a binding of the UK to Rwanda for potentially a long period of time, which really means the UK supporting a minority Tutsi regime and helping to impose that on Hutus. It would be the type of colonial arrangement Tutsis have historically been keen on, to cement their power over the majority.

I expect the refugees will just be dumped in Rwanda without any support, hostile environment style. There's little prospect of an outsider integrating into Rwanda, where most of the opportunities in the tiny economy are monopolised by the Tutsi minority. The refugees will then have to take their chances traveling elsewhere, probably to big Kenyan or SA cities. It wouldn't be surprising if the Rwandans assisted them in doing this, especially if they can be directed at states not that supportive of Rwanda (larger democracies like Kenya or SA then). They'll then likely try and travel from there to elsewhere outside Africa.

I can see any support for the UK and the Commonwealth (massively) declining in any nation impacted by this.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:43 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:32 am According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I can see it happening.

There's been other countries the UK have tried to do this with. Albania and Ghana from memory, the UK government jumped the gun both times and were publicly told to fuck off by those countries (that were probably just nodding along to the crazy plans in private, with no intention of committing to anything).

Rwanda isn't like Ghana. Ghana is a democracy that has a turnover of parties and presidents. Rwanda isn't like that, it's an authoritarian dictatorship with an incredibly thin veneer of democracy, this is different to a flawed democracy with a low/no turnover of parties and/or presidents, it's a completely potemkin "democracy" where no democracy exists. Rwanda is ruled by the 10% Tutsi minority, as in the president for the last 22 years is a Tutsi (with 99% of the vote in presidential elections), the ruling party is Tutsi dominated, affirmative action works to benefit Tutsis (in government jobs and university places etc), the rebel groups Rwanda backs in the DRC are always Tutsi. It's a Tutsi junta.

Such a regime needs to find credibility and countries willing to support it. They've struggled fining this in Africa, this goes all the way back to their role in the Second Congo War. So they need outside support if the Hutus ever come for them again (which given enough time, they will, because the whole Tutsi junta thing). What this scheme gives Rwanda, is a binding of the UK to Rwanda for potentially a long period of time, which really means the UK supporting a minority Tutsi regime and helping to impose that on Hutus. It would be the type of colonial arrangement Tutsis have historically been keen on, to cement their power over the majority.

I expect the refugees will just be dumped in Rwanda without any support, hostile environment style. There's little prospect of an outsider integrating into Rwanda, where most of the opportunities in the tiny economy are monopolised by the Tutsi minority. The refugees will then have to take their chances traveling elsewhere, probably to big Kenyan or SA cities. It wouldn't be surprising if the Rwandans assisted them in doing this, especially if they can be directed at states not that supportive of Rwanda (larger democracies like Kenya or SA then). They'll then likely try and travel from there to elsewhere outside Africa.

I can see any support for the UK and the Commonwealth (massively) declining in any nation impacted by this.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:58 pm IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:05 pm Sure I should rephrase to it'll happen as an incredibly small part of the overall asylum policy in that maybe two flights of people are sent. They also announced a new UK processing center. This is just a Nauru esk steak for the Tory press to deflect from all the boats arriving for two weeks.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:40 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:58 pm IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

I've seen it mentioned in reports about the UK move. It's not a good comparison to have though, Denmark is doing some very strange things. They're planning to conduct forced evictions and limit the "non-Western" (people who aren't white?) inhabitants of any area to 30%. This means going into fully settled communities of people who are Danish citizens and forcing them to live elsewhere. It was literally part of apartheid that forced evictions from "black spots" were carried out. In other words their plan is for Danish citizens to have apartheid controls on where they can live placed on them, but only if they are "non-Western".

Probably not a good thing if the Danes are doing it.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:40 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:58 pm IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

I've seen it mentioned in reports about the UK move. It's not a good comparison to have though, Denmark is doing some very strange things. They're planning to conduct forced evictions and limit the "non-Western" (people who aren't white?) inhabitants of any area to 30%. This means going into fully settled communities of people who are Danish citizens and forcing them to live elsewhere. It was literally part of apartheid that forced evictions from "black spots" were carried out. In other words their plan is for Danish citizens to have apartheid controls on where they can live placed on them, but only if they are "non-Western".

Probably not a good thing if the Danes are doing it.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:58 pm IIRC Rwanda already does this for Denmark?

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:16 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:59 am

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:32 am According to an FT journo:

Three points on Rwanda policy.
1) Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2) The UK is spending £120m
3) 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

This isn't happening. It's pure paper bate.

I just read that they have secured 50 hotel rooms for the project….

Reading some comments it’s various places it’s not a hugely unpopular plan

It's a great publicity stunt for their clapping seals in the papers. 120m isn't much for a government which shows how serious the plan actually is.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:51 pm Yes I know Denmark well. A lovely country but I always have a slight giggle when people on the British left wish we were more like them...

Brazil wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:06 pm Yeah, they have a cuddly reputation that the reality belies. Deporting the Syrian refugees was a particular low point. Their recent Op in the Gulf of Guinea also raised a few eyebrows (shoot up a boat full of "pirates", release all but one of the survivors when you realise you might have to try them in Denmark, risking an asylum claim).

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:04 pm I thought I was missing something, from tyhe announcement this morning
Cross channel migrants are not being sent to Rwanda for "processing". They are being forcibly transported with no option for asylum once they have landed in Rwanda!!

C69 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:16 pm They really are out Faraging Farage
What a bunch of cunts. I've just watched a report on Sky.
Tbh if you are a reactionary Daily Mail reading Opensides type you willbe tumescent at this news.

We will never ever solve this problem while we stay signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, subject to the European court in Strasburg, and have the incorporation of that law under the Human Rights Act into UK law ...

Boris Johnson today talked about an army of human rights lawyers. But he didn’t address the elephant in the room that is the Human Rights Act. And unless we deal with [that] - frankly, unless we complete Brexit - we’re not going to be able to deal with this for you is basically to get rid of the Human Rights Act.

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:04 pm I thought I was missing something, from tyhe announcement this morning
Cross channel migrants are not being sent to Rwanda for "processing". They are being forcibly transported with no option for asylum once they have landed in Rwanda!!

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:44 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:04 pm I thought I was missing something, from tyhe announcement this morning
Cross channel migrants are not being sent to Rwanda for "processing". They are being forcibly transported with no option for asylum once they have landed in Rwanda!!

If that's the case then it's as I thought, they're going to be dumped in Rwanda hostile environment style (like the people that just got dumped on the street in Jamaica with nothing). Which will not be that costly for the UK. They then (maybe) get a Rwandan passport, and the best visa free place they can easily and legally get to with that passport is Kenya (Rwandans need a visa to get into SA). So they get deported from the UK to Rwanda, then probably end up in a Nairobi slum (Kenya has a much larger economy than Rwanda, and Nairobi is a much larger city than Kigali, far more opportunity there). Kenya has so far been one of the more pro-UK African countries.

There's a heap of dangers in all that. One of them is that it's expanded to any illegal immigrant, the problem with that being the UK immigration system has a habit of changing its rules so radically that perfectly legal settled people become illegal overnight (or in some ways worse, end up in a grey area where they cannot prove their status).

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 6:42 am

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 10:19 pm

C69 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:31 pm
Bet you will still vote Tory again

Without a doubt! Least worst option!!

Although I’ve never voted Tory and usually either spoil my vote or give it to one of the smaller parties, I’d usually have that thought in my mind.

But don’t you think that’s a bit difficult to back up now given Brexit, the constant lying, partygate, offshore, refugees, and on and on and on. It’s just a bit of a lazy statement now, this feels a bit unprecedented in terms of a really shit government taking us in a very wrong direction