The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[The Fun Factory]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

No, I think you're wildly wrong with that. As it currently stands they are heading for an unprecedented defeat, their largest ever by some considerable margin. They will have the least number of MPs since the introduction of the current parliamentary system with the introduction of the Representation of the People Act in 1918. The current nadir for Tory MPs is 165 which was from 1997. The Tories achieved 30.7% of the vote, their current polling is way below that. There are MRP polls from as far back as August that predict on a granular level constituency by constituency their share of the seats being 64. They haven't improved in the standings since then.

 

 

I will believe it when I see. Polls are polls. On election day the grey army are the ones that usually vote. It is almost certain they will lose but I refuse to accept that they will get utterly destroyed. For example, in Wyre Forest where I live there is no way that Labour would win here. That is why they are clinging onto to all of this anti woke daily hail nonsense, to get their core vote to shuffle out of their homes and vote.

Edited December 7, 2023 by The Fun Factory

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

I will believe it when I see. Polls are polls. On election day the grey army are the ones that usually vote. It is almost certain they will lose but I refuse to accept that they will get utterly destroyed. For example, in Wyre Forest where I live there is no way that Labour would win here.

Nah, Wyre Forest is fairly winnable for Labour, even more so if the LibDem vote collapses due to tactical voting

[ml1dch]

11 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

For example, in Wyre Forest where I live there is no way that Labour would win here. 

On current polling, Labour take Wyre Forest, helped by a comparably high Reform vote. 

[OutByEaster?]

5 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Very fashy

"We should be able to do what we want without having to worry about laws."

It's frightening that he can say that out loud and there not being a massive uproar - this phrase "our courts" is being used and reprinted in newspapers and on TV news and it seems to be creating some sort of weird disconnect between what he's saying, which is "the law shouldn't stop us doing whatever we want" and what they want people to hear, which is "woke judges shouldn't interfere".

It's really important I think that our news sources start talking about the law of the land when they tell us what he's suggesting, not "our courts".

 

[LondonLax]

14 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

"We should be able to do what we want without having to worry about laws."

It's frightening that he can say that out loud and there not being a massive uproar - this phrase "our courts" is being used and reprinted in newspapers and on TV news and it seems to be creating some sort of weird disconnect between what he's saying, which is "the law shouldn't stop us doing whatever we want" and what they want people to hear, which is "woke judges shouldn't interfere".

It's really important I think that our news sources start talking about the law of the land when they tell us what he's suggesting, not "our courts".

 

Laws are made by the government. Judges then interpret and apply them. If the people don’t like a particular law they can elect a government promising to change that law. 

In this case however I don’t think the proposals of the current government reflect the will of the people, as we will likely find out at the next election. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

In this case however I don’t think the proposals of the current government reflect the will of the people, as we will likely find out at the next election. 

My perception is that for a significant chunk of people “stopping the boats” is their “will”. Of course even if this madness goes through it won’t stop the small boats, but maybe the Tories will continue with this ludicrous woke judges crap that @OutByEaster? says above, as their “excuse”. It’s utterly absurd, all of it. Shameful. And just as likely that as the small boats continue to arrive people will blame the Tories for not stopping them despite wanging on about it through god knows how many prime ministers and Home Secretaries. Incompetence, cruelty and delusion.

[chrisp65]

6 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

 

Very fashy

 

Parliament is sovereign and should make decisions that cannot be undone by courts.

This emergency legislation will postpone the election whilst we investigate several allegations about the Labour Party.

The Minister for Continued Democracy will review when an election can be held at the earliest opportunity.

 

[bickster]

Even the we are a reasonable country bit is bollocks with this it in power

[markavfc40]

It is no wonder with shameful stats like the below the Tories want to try to deflect attention to this Rwanda bullshit. 

 

[Chindie]

Tories skirts and trousers the country over will be gushing at that stat.

[choffer]

Nail, emphatically on head. 

 

[Genie]

Still money to be found for the right projects

Quote

The UK has given Rwanda a further £100m this year as part of its deal to relocate asylum seekers there.

The payment was made in April, the Home Office's top civil servant said in a letter to MPs, after £140m had already been sent to the African nation. 

Sir Matthew Rycroft said another payment of £50m was expected next year.

The revelation came hours after Rishi Sunak vowed to "finish the job" of reviving the plan after the resignation of his immigration minister this week.

 Just quietly slipping £100m in to the Rwanda bank account, and another £50m in the pending pile.

link

[meregreen]

5 hours ago, Genie said:

Still money to be found for the right projects

 Just quietly slipping £100m in to the Rwanda bank account, and another £50m in the pending pile.

link

Not even the Rwanda bank account. How much of this money will end up in Rwandan politicians accounts.

[Genie]

38 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Not even the Rwanda bank account. How much of this money will end up in Rwandan politicians accounts.

They can only take “up to “ 200 people a year, and they’ve had £240m from us already.

Something SERIOUSLY wrong here.

How is sending up to 200 people to Rwanda going go stop upwards of 140,000 travelling on small boats across the channel?

Also, how much have we paid France on top of this to step up their patrols?

Its astonishing what is going on.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Genie

[meregreen]

Monbiot was bang on the money. It’s all a smokescreen to take peoples attention away from the shit show this country has become with these clowns in charge.

[markavfc40]

13 minutes ago, Genie said:

 

How is sending up to 200 people to Rwanda going go stop upwards of 140,000 travelling on small boats across the channel?

Also, how much have we paid France on top of this to step up their patrols?

Its astonishing what is going on.

Out of interest mate when you say stop upwards of 140k people travelling on small boats where is that 140k figure from? as of last month 27k had crossed the channel in small boats this year, last year (2022) was the highest ever yearly total at 47k.

This whole thing is a farce and a complete waste of our money, something which the Tories have made into a national past time over the last handful of years. 

I doubt we'll see anyone deported to Rwanda but even if the figure of 200 is reached, before we have a change of government and this policy is abandoned, that works out at a cost of 1.45 million pound per person. You couldn't make this crap up.

[Davkaus]

27 minutes ago, Genie said:

They can only take “up to “ 200 people a year, and they’ve had £240m from us already.

Something SERIOUSLY wrong here.

How is sending up to 200 people to Rwanda going go stop upwards of 140,000 travelling on small boats across the channel?

Also, how much have we paid France on top of this to step up their patrols?

Its astonishing what is going on.

And don't forget them sending people the other way, for which they refuse to provide estimates of how many there might be.

It's an absolute disgrace of a policy, from its ethical considerations, efficacy, budgetary concerns, it's unworkable on every level

[bickster]

Am I right in thinking that we've sent Rwanda £240mil in order to be able to house 200 asylum seekers a year?

That would appear to be £1.2mil per asylum seeker

[Genie]

Just now, markavfc40 said:

Out of interest mate when you say stop upwards of 140k people travelling on small boats where is that 140k figure from? as of last month 27k had crossed the channel in small boats this year, last year (2022) was the highest ever yearly total at 47k.

This whole thing is a farce and a complete waste of our money, something which the Tories have made into a national past time over the last handful of years. 

I doubt we'll see anyone deported to Rwanda but even if the figure of 200 is reached, before we have a change of government and this policy is abandoned, that works out at a cost of 1.45 million pound per person. You couldn't make this crap up.

Yeah, I messed up there. 140,000 apparently is the backlog of applications awaiting processing. I scanned over something without fully reading it.

The whole plan is full of holes it’s barely a plan.

Even if they get over the legal hurdles, an unlucky 0.1% of migrants will be sent to Rwanda. A percentage of them will likely fail in their asylum claim in Rwanda and be sent back to the UK.

A percentage of those which are granted asylum in Rwanda will reappear back in the UK one way or another I am certain.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

Am I right in thinking that we've sent Rwanda £240mil in order to be able to house 200 asylum seekers a year?

That would appear to be £1.2mil per asylum seeker

Yup.

Its going go work out at £290m minimum to house 0 asylum seekers I’m sure.

The other interesting stat from the home office

Quote

The department has also estimated the cost of sending someone to a safe country - not specifically Rwanda - is £169,000, compared to £106,000 if they remain in the UK.

link