Forum menu
They've taken that tweet down.
They are in a total panic aren't they?
Edit: It reapeared again, then went again! I can almost imagine a drunken punch up going on at a pc keyboard at Tory hq.🙃😁
It's back!
Deleted tweet for me...what did it say?
Stop the f****** boats whilst Rome burns.
In principle, we welcome much-needed foreign firefighting workforce...but they'd better not bring their bastard families with them, and they should only be paid salaries that no employer is willing to pay them. And if they can't do that, then I think we'd rather burn, thankyouverymuch
The governments official twitter feed….
That's not the government's official twitter feed.
so about those Rwanda costs...
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1732879076338131099?t=mool8cajL0N3qMw5KGUAgw&s=19
There are so, so many things that need the governments attention. You name it, it’s broken. Broken yet totally ignored, not even on the radar.
Well that is obviously the intention. The only thing people are talking about, politics wise, including on this thread, is ****ing Rwanda. Stuff like this gets largely ignored:
So the strategy is clearly working extremely well. Furthermore any failures by this Tory government over the issue will not be their fault - it will be squarely blamed on leftie lawyers, "foreign" courts, and the Labour Party.
The Tories just need to conjure up an image of Thatcherite determination, the sort that the current leader of the Labour Party admires so much.
And some people actually believe that the Tories are stupid.
Well that is obviously the intention. The only thing people are talking about, politics wise, including on this thread, is **** Rwanda. Stuff like this gets largely ignored:
Nah you are giving them way to much credit.
It does seem to have started that way (if you believe the lying arse cummings) but it has evolved a life of its own where the nutters in the party have latched onto what should have been a distraction tactic.
what should have been a distraction tactic.
And you don't think that it is? Why are we talking about Rwanda instead of the cost of living crisis?
The Tory Party is deeply divided. Partly because faced with economic failure they have become ideologically rudderless, and partly because facing electoral disaster they desperately need to find a rabbit to pull out of the hat.
Rwanda is not the cause of their divisions, but it is a useful distraction. If Tory ministers are getting sacked or resigning it is because the ship is sinking.
Without Rwanda the focus would be on much more dangerous stuff. Things that actually concern voters in a meaningful way.
Sunak could easily have dropped Rwanda when the supreme court threw it out.
I don’t think he can drop it… he’s bet everything on “stop the boats” (yes, promising to fix a self created ‘problem’) energising the voters that “get Brexit done” got out for Johnson, and keeping the ERG MPs and New Conservatives MPs of 2019 on side long enough to stay PM to get as far as an election. He has nothing new to offer but reheated “control our borders”, to either the voters or MPs. It’s not going to work for him. Now, he could have transformed the Rwanda policy, which for some bonkers reason he has allowed to remain key to his anti-asylum seeker approach, into something more workable, while still sounding “tough”… but he didn’t have the political creativity to do that… he’s fallen back on “stop the courts” instead. That’s going to get needlessly messy for him. He’s called it wrong.
Sunak could easily have dropped Rwanda when the supreme court threw it out.
No he couldnt since, as we have seen, the nutters (plus possibly some none nutters who see it as the route to power despite the lesson from johnson and brexit) in his party thinks it is a panacea for all ills.
I am not sure which way he would have gone on it but he is unable to drop it easily since a decent part of his party would have included him in their aim as well as the rule of law.
his party thinks it is a panacea for all ills.
Well yeah, I totally agree with that, but precisely because it is a distraction. Not because it will actually solve anything at all, such as the cost of living crises, NHS waiting times, etc. etc.
Bearing in mind that they have nothing much to trumpet about it is not a bad strategy.
The only time he could have dropped it, was when he became PM… but he had one big mistake forced on him at that point (or less charitably he made one huge almighty political cock up)… his choice of Home Secretary, and letting them keep the policy going in the face of legal and practical reality. That was when he could have found a new way to do his anti-asylum tubthumping… he’s let the Rwanda scheme gain a whole new importance now, and can’t be rid of it. As I said, a better political operator would have revised it, but he’s going for the legal battle route… which isn’t going to please anyone… it doesn’t look like it’ll work to many MPs, it’s unconservative to others… and is just messy and unclear to a lot of the public (and still just a cop out of our responsibilities as a country to the rest of us).
He could have dropped the Rwanda policy when the Supreme Court threw it out, by then he had already sacked Braverman and no longer needed to appease her.
He chose not because it serves his purpose. It is the only thing that political pundits are currently talking about. Dropping it would have done him no favours at all.
Unless someone can suggest some?
https://twitter.com/seaninsound/status/1732868493568094695?t=8orCFiNpwMYIax-jqhQmiA&s=19
George Monbiot nails the purpose of the Rwanda policy.
George Monbiot nails the purpose of the Rwanda policy.
Spot on. They can’t offer anything positive. It’s virtueless signalling. It isn’t going to work. I hope.
Dropping it would have done him no favours at all.
He can’t drop it. He’s stood behind lectern after lectern saying “stop the boats” and has allowed the Rwanda nonsense to be the core policy behind that slogan. He’s trapped. He had a golden chance to “improve it”, and this is all he came up with, legal nonsense that just tries to tell the courts, “no, you’re wrong, and we don’t need you anyway”.
I wish I could post on the mail, express etc etc because their tory loving readership dont seem to realize that the Rwanda deal is a two way deal, and however many the UK sends to Rwanda, the same number Rwanda is going to send here. And I'm going to guess its going to be government minsters and their families, associates and business leaders all out for their British passport.
I watched some of QT. In that tweet of George Monbiot above, you can see a few not clapping. Bearing in mind what he is saying and how demonstratably true it is, what utter messes of humanity they must be. Lacking in the most basic of empathy and twisted with prejudice. Beyond redemption and absolutely indicative of anyone that could still bring themselves to vote Tory at this juncture.
George Monbiot nails the purpose of the Rwanda policy.
Absolutely. He very much makes the case that the purpose of the policy is to act as a "distraction", he even uses the word.
It was created as something to focus on, a distraction, it’ll never amount to anything meaningful numbers wise, and is only proposed as a solution to a ‘problem’ of their own making… it’s a waste of money… a symbolic noise about deterrents, borders and foreigners to be heard by those new voters they gained via Brexit… a cruel and yet also unworkable policy… it marks out the vulnerable to be the target of our fears and hate in desperate times… everyone posting here agrees on these things.
Well yeah you can understand why Rishi Sunak supports the policy. He doesn't exactly have many rabbits that he can pull out of the hat before the next general election. Rwanda at least provides a useful distraction, it's what everyone's talking about, even on QT.
Dropping it would leave him up Shit Creek without a paddle. What else would people be talking about?
Edit:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/14/30390/2
That ^^ was taken before the Supreme Court ruling so public support has probably dropped slightly since then, but you can see that as a distraction it is unlikely to lose the Tories support. On the other hand focusing on real issues is highly likely to.
Also I suspect that quite a few voters probably fall for the "it's a humane and caring policy to defeat the evil human traffickers" bollocks that some people come out with.
‘Stop the Boats’ is just a dead cat
It’s also a rallying cry. For you know who. Just don’t ask why the boats started.
Kerching!
For the Rwandan government.
Reorted by the torygraph that the UK agreed back in April to pay an additional £100 million to Rwanda but, as that pre-dates both the Supreme Court decision and the treaty announcement, it would appear that it was in support of the previous illegal agreement.
The reporting also refers to a payment of £50 million to be made next year so, doing some maths and using all my fingers and toes, that comes to...£290 million and it won't end there.
Also reported on world service news.
If that's what it costs to get rid of sunak, have a GE and get the tories out it could be argued it's money well spent
the official twitter feed of the governing party then
Should there be a blue tick or whatever it is?
QT was good last night, Dodds put across the Labour view quite well, Monbiot was spot on. Even Hitchens made a good point that our foreign policies and our wars helped drive migration, root cause analysis at last.
Only one self proclaimed Tory voter in the audience said he was in favour of the policy, a couple of Tory voters spoke against it. But a fair few silent Tories didn’t applaud Monbiot, ignore the Shy Tory voters at our peril.
‘Stopping the Boats’ It just seems like so much effort to achieve almost nothing. I mean there must be literally a few hundred people each year who end up fraudulently claiming asylum. There are more important things for me as a voter to be concerned about.
That is because you are not a stupid racist who is a populists dream. If nobody had ever highlighted the boats and massively overplayed the issue then not even those stupid racists would care about it.
Having a campaign based on "Reduce asylum claim processing times" is not going to have the same appeal is it but that is the real problem here.
ignore the Shy Tory voters at our peril.
If you know any, treat them with contempt, maybe try ridiculing them, as facts don't seem to work.
Anyone who feels this is harsh, remember we're spending £290m to send about 200 folk to Rwanda and then get the same number back.
How can ANYONE with a functioning brain be a supporter of this?
How can ANYONE with a functioning brain be a supporter of this?
Because they haven't spent a couple of minutes looking into it, thinking about it etc,. This is where the opposition should be making clear to everyone exactly what it is along the lines of your "we’re spending £290m to send about 200 folk to Rwanda and then get the same number back." and not getting drawn into discussions about human rights laws.
even Tory fanboy & concrete farmer Ferrari is piling in on the floundering government
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1732686652609319001?t=YoQhlYyddTvH1FZDii03VA&s=19
Concrete guy is Mike Graham.
Concrete guy is Mike Graham.
apologies, they are gentlemen of a similar deportment, but that's no excuse!
This is where the opposition should be making clear to everyone exactly what it is along the lines of your “we’re spending £290m to send about 200 folk to Rwanda and then get the same number back.” and not getting drawn into discussions about human rights laws.
This is all Starmer did at PMQs this week. Worth a listen.
https://www.youtube.com/live/u4Oao3Yz95Y?si=9Xs6iBfcXYjbmkg8&t=360
I rarely listen to Nicky Campbell on 5live but am this morning.
Some woman - claire bullivant - from 'conservative home' is one of the guests and, I have to say, she is...deluded.
She has said that, based on polling of their members, ree-smug is their preferred choice for tory leader with patel and braverman also in the running; mordant an badenoch dismissed as 'too woke'.
Tune in!
EDIT: she's gone.
The Home Office has now admitted that they've given Rwanda another 100 million quid on top of the original 140 million
Half a billion quid for doing **** all? They must be absolutely loving this?
@frankconway - I'm just listening to that lunacy. WTF?!!! Rees Mogg has mass appeal to the electorate apparently? The Tories would definitely win with him as leader
We have no money for HS2! I'm cancelling it immediately because the Conservatives always deliver value for money.
...
...
...
Dear Rwanda, have quarter of a billion pounds while we argue whether or not we can send 200 [s] asylum seekers[/s] illegal immigrants to you.
Rees Mogg has mass appeal to the electorate apparently?
He's Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to you. Know your place, pleb. 😉
This is all Starmer did at PMQs this week. Worth a listen.
Raising stuff at PMQs is not what I had in mind for "This is where the opposition should be making clear to everyone". Not many people pay attention to PMQs and rightly so as the answers are ridiculous and turn people off of politics more than anything I would think.
Raising stuff at PMQs is not what I had in mind for “This is where the opposition should be making clear to everyone”
With two wars, a cost of living crisis, an Inquiry being attended by a former PM who's a proven liar, and a governing party that's imploding to cover simultaneously, what media outlet do you think is going to pay any attention to or have the time for; an opposition party saying "We oppose..."?
Well, I've also heard these points raised in radio interviews by shadow ministers. Truth is, they can't get the attention to their words unless they throw in "Thatcher" or something else to excite the media. Opposition MPs of all parties have been banging on about the cost compared to how few people it would apply to all damn year.
With two wars, a cost of living crisis, an Inquiry being attended by a former PM who’s a proven liar, and a governing party that’s imploding to cover simultaneously, what media outlet do you think is going to pay any
attention to or have the time for; an opposition party saying “We oppose…”?
Whenever the subject comes up at any time they are being asked about stuff. Just point out to people what the Rwanda scheme actually is at every opportunity. They spend enough time dodging questions so should be able to spout out some facts during those wasted interviews.
Good example clipped on LBC right now. Perhaps today is the day for those opposition MPs to be heard, thanks to Sunak's emergency announcement yesterday and the noises off from his own MPs.
How does 1/4 billion to Rwanda square with the avowed intent to get British employers to employ and train British workers. That 1/4 billion would employ enough immigration people here to process the backlog very quickly. We could also open some approved channels for immigrants/refugees to make contact and start the process with the change.
I bet they can't believe their luck. There'll be partying in Kigali this Christmas that would turn Johnson green with envy.
Next potential tory mp for Kirkcaldy?
Jesus Christ, someone pop a pill in his tea and send him off to a rave.
Yeah... it's all quite performative, like a JRM disciple... but that car is GORGEOUS... I'm jealous.
Apparently they don't ration..... looking at the photo can I just add. No s##t sherlock
I dunno, if I'm going to be judging I'd be tempted to look at the people who come online to randomly denigrate a kid who's a bit weird, but harmless, instead of noticing the real problems in the world. Although if someone does "pop a pill in his tea and send him off to a rave", I would watch.
the brexit bugle are running a poll on the runners and riders
"We love to run along the coast in the old car, my friend Lynsey and I," he says.
I often wonder where Norman is now. Probably wintering with his mother in Guildford. A cat, and the rain... Vim under the sink, and both bars on. But old now, old! There can be no true beauty without decay.
the rwanda dead cat bounce
The problem is that public support for the Rwanda policy exceeds support for the Tory Party, by approximately X2 in fact, which makes it an attractive distraction.
Opposition parties really need to bang on endlessly about both the needless waste of money it represents, and the fact that it is both pointless and inhumane.
The Tories rely on the fear of opposition parties to engage too much on the subject of immigration.
the rwanda dead cat bounce
The problem is that public support for the Rwanda policy exceeds support for the Tory Party, by approximately X2 in fact,
Any evidence for that?
I don't think anyone with an IQ in double figures could support this Rwanda nonsense.
Ho0w can it be a deterrent? These people are literally risking their lives when crossing the Channel. The odds of getting sent to Rwanda are tiny.
Even if the boat crossing send you into a rage, why would anyone think this would make a difference?
I hope this absolutely destroys them.
I know Kircawdy pretty well and never seen him before but I could imagine he's pretty dogged with that lifestyle growing up there
Michael Portilo with his dandy coloured clothing and copy of Bradshaw's guide stuck to his hand is well connected to the town spending many days growing up with his wealthy grandparents on Loughborough Rd
Reminds me of the Yorkshire lad with the bald heid and thick accent who idolised Maggie Thatch and became an MP
aw leave him alone, he’s no wierder than us and our carbon dandyhorses and tights.
You're right there. But some of us don't own carbon bikes or wear tights, and never will.
And... that car is worth having a passion for anyway... just look at it! Properly lovely.
Might Kircaldy be a land of nominative determinism? I can't see him reintroducing rationing.
""When I was younger, I looked at my great grandad's prisoner-of-war diaries and I just love everything about the period.""
I wonder what his favourite bit is? The starvation, the dysentry, the losing the odd bunk mate to execution in reprisal for escape attempts ...
I wonder what his favourite bit is?
The part where he gets to live in a nice centrally heated house and eat modern food rather than eating rations off a blanket in a bomb shelter at Aldwych...
Give it a few years and the Tories will get us back to that state of affairs.
Jacob Rees-Mogg probably wants us all back in the 1840's rather than the 1940's....
leaving an oily sheen in it's wake resulting in hedgerows full of roadies 😉
Who'd have thought it - the Tories sometimes have money to do shitty things but never have money for anything remotely progressive or practical.
It's almost as if we're being taken for mugs.
Ffs..I have lived in Kirkcaldy on and off for nearly 47 years, and when we finally get a mention in the national news, it’s to cover some plump oddball who should have had any notion of carrying on like that beaten out of him in the park on the walk home from school..
what an embarrassment ..
And… that car is worth having a passion for anyway… just look at it! Properly lovely.
You should buy one, they are pretty cheap as nobody wants them as too old - not great to drive, hard to get parts for, brakes appalling, safety appalling and so on. There is a reason why most people who actually drive their classic cars go late 50s as oldest.
Look at the condition of this for £8K https://www.carandclassic.com/car/C1662171
Saying, that I do like pre war cars and my house is very mid century with a lot of furniture from that time but I haven't gone as far as clothing.
I'm mechanically inept when it comes to cars... no use to me at all... plus that's twice what we paid for our car.
loving that Sunak is throwing braverman under the bus on this
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1733109408383504454?t=Zb3L8vm5S3GaRiHalEMcYw&s=19
meanwhile that'd he a 380 odd majority
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1733094687416676627?t=zSzRoPZ7AK3jwNaluwsyOg&s=19
I’m mechanically inept when it comes to cars… no use to me at all… plus that’s twice what we paid for our car.
Fair enough, live your dreams...
loving that Sunak is throwing braverman under the bus on this
That one works in both directions though.
If the woman he sacked was responsible for the sign-off, does that mean that
a) He has no control over his ministers
b) He doesn't support the extra hundred million, but is doing sweet FA about retrieving it?
He's the one responsible for getting value for taxpayers' money, in case he hadn't noticed.
At PMQs Sunak denied that more was being paid, when Starmer challenged him on this... the words used seemed especially slippery... hold on... clicking the vid...
"there is no incremental money"
As meaningless as all his answers about this policy on Wednesday (and since).
The problem is that public support for the Rwanda policy exceeds support for the Tory Party, by approximately X2 in fact,
Any evidence for that?
Yeah I posted it yesterday, quite a large YouGov poll:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/14/30390/2
And, as I think you said, well worth looking at how that breaks down based on past voting patterns...
...heavily supported by the people they hope to get votes from again.
With all the talk today of the small amount of £100m extra don't forget this bargin
Government quietly awards travel firm £1.6bn contract for asylum barges and accommodation
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/barge-australia-asylum-contract-travel-b2354578.html
John O'Connell, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: “This murky contract leaves taxpayers in the dark. The migrant crisis may require an urgent response, but bungled procurement has cost a fortune in recent years.
“Ministers must ensure transparency and value for money when tendering services.”
Odd to see the Taxpayers Alliance (which isnt an alliance and doesn't represent taxpayers) sticking the boot in here. Is this a way of savaging Jenrick?