Where does Jungle Nige fit in to all this? He was all over the Tory conference like a fungal skin infection on jabba the hutts arse. Spot of “humanisation” ont Telly and then lines up with Suella, Liz and Moggy for the (fentanyl withdrawal fever) dream ticket?
It wouldn't surprise me - but I suspect like others who have tried to create a new party overnight it will be doomed to failure.
Right now I wouldn't bet on the tories being 2nd at the next election. Not because I think they'll win, or even that some UKIP-revival party will do well... ...but this should be the lib dems opportunity to fill the vacuum, shame nobody outside the party can even name their leader!
They set this whole thing up to lose in the same way that Boris set everything up to gloriously lose the Brexit referendum.
It’s all about posturing
If by some remote chance they do win tomorrow, then expect a replay of this…
They never expected to be tasked with delivering it, so there was no plan to do so. Bravermans Rwanda ‘plan’ is exactly the same
Christ, we need rid of this gang of grifters! I can’t believe there are people so thick that they can’t see straight through them
‘Lord’ Mogg was, sadly, on the money about this
Nah, Mogg is an attention seeker just like she was. The media like attention seekers and feed them too much oxygen but the majority of the public don't really have Suella's priorities at the top of their agenda. Some will loudly vocalise her views - but voters are not the same as the noise generators on either side of the fence. Mogg will be living in an echo chamber - because what middle of the road british citizen is going to go and talk to him about, unless they are interested in views from vicotiana?
As for this brain dump of a letter,
Someone in our company whats app group just posted it with "this is what happens when you fire someone and haven't told IT quickly enough to stop them sending that "all company email" out"
I do have to say that they _must_ have known she would do that, so why the hell not actually sack her and deny her that opportunity?
He did sack her (a bit too late but she was sacked, that is not a resignation letter). But the thing is everyone has a platform with social media and as a high profile politician that platform is quite significant. I suspect he held off just in case the Palestine Ceasefire March actually turned into widespread chaos and she was "proved right".
What was considered the ‘usual’ way of doing politics - the ‘good chap’ theory - no longer apply, post-Johnson. He did away with all that.
Boris was a Poundshop Trump, gleefully trampling over democratic norms to serve his own interests. But his own interests were justvacuous and vain
No prizes for for guessing who would be the one to pick up the ball and go ‘Full Trump’. Someone with a far more sinister agenda. I get the feeling Cruella is only just warming up. She’s barely even started yet and she’ll happily put the entire UK democracy through the shredder to further her aims. Word like ‘fascist’ get thrown around a lot nowadays, but she’s the real deal. A ten Bob Brownshirt
^^ Agreed, even after a Labour government she could be a huge threat to this country of she still has a hold of the Tory party.
I hope that when the Tories lose she is swallowed up by the infighting. That's a hope rather than a prediction though.
She's a dangerous individual.
Poopscoop
Full MemberYou have to love that Suella thinks that Sunak looking at her letter of demands when she took the job is some sort if binding employment contract. He’s a politician!
"Dear Rishi, I am very disappointed that you, a habitual liar, have broken the deal you made with me, a habitual liar"
I get the feeling Cruella is only just warming up.
They should both be on that celebrity jungle palaver at the same time.
Who would pluck and eat the most maggots from a rotting chicken filet?, who would surive the the final steel cage match?
Isn’t she allegedly a lawyer?
I don't think I would hire her.
Is she a lawyer in the same sense she's Buddhist? as in she might have read a book about it once?
She is a barrister, but rumour has it not a very good one. I’m fairly sure there was a bit of a stink about her being made a QC as she had to be one to be attorney general, rather than on merit?
Maybe just spend the money, you know, on efficiently processing the asylum claims here so they can either be released into the system to earn money/taxes/contribute to society, or repatriated if they are rejected and maybe we wouldn’t have 200,000 awaiting their appeals.
This is what the opposition party should be shouting every single time asylum is mentioned. It may sink in to some people then.
Braverman has also falsified / exaggerated her accomplishments as a lawyer. Multiple complaints to the bar council about her conduct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suella_Braverman#Allegations_of_misconduct
She’s going to weaponise all this shit. She already has. She’s a dead cert as next Tory leader, brought to you by the same old senile racists who delivered you Liz Truss as PM
I suppose/hope the natural wastage will eat into this.
Where does Jungle Nige fit in to all this? He was all over the Tory conference like a fungal skin infection on jabba the hutts arse. Spot of “humanisation” ont Telly and then lines up with Suella, Liz and Moggy for the (fentanyl withdrawal fever) dream ticket?
I do wonder if after the crashing election defeat the new band gets together.
Winning an election on not being the Tory party isn’t the greatest win, I can see a scenario where we end up with with the NuTory party being full on EDL/NF inspired and even worse than we’re we are now.
We laugh at GBeebies and Cruella but I have a nasty feeling we are at the beginning of something not the end.
It wouldn’t surprise me – but I suspect like others who have tried to create a new party overnight it will be doomed to failure.
no need to create a new party just continue rebranding the existing one,parachute Farage into a safe seat or Baron Farage and off we go 🙂
I do wonder if after the crashing election defeat the new band gets together.
There was someone on R4 suggesting that he's going to wait until after the election and then join the Conservative's as a populist 'saviour' of things... Apparently he, Sue Ellen and the Lettuce formerly known as Prime Minister are all really popular within a group of Tory party members....
TBH after the return of the Cameron,bringing back more of the old favourites and some crossovers doesn’t look so far fetched.
Maybe just spend the money, you know, on efficiently processing the asylum claims here so they can either be released into the system to earn money/taxes/contribute to society, or repatriated if they are rejected and maybe we wouldn’t have 200,000 awaiting their appeals.
Not enough media impact with actually just getting on doing the job efficiently.
Oh and solving a ‘usefull’ problem means you have to create a new bogey man to frighten the pensioners now you can’t blame the EU.
you have to create a new bogey man to frighten the pensioners now you can’t blame the EU.
See Esther McVey's appt as minister for common sense and "anti woke". Like "Brussels" it can anything you want at the same time that it obviously means nothing at all, and everyone can create their own interpretation.
We laugh at GBeebies and Cruella but I have a nasty feeling we are at the beginning of something not the end.
The first series of the BBCs "Rise of the Nazis" felt awfully current.
It wouldn’t surprise me – but I suspect like others who have tried to create a new party overnight it will be doomed to failure.
They believe the whole country is wanting a hard / far right party and is just waiting for them to create it. Remember this lot just believe what they think is right and everyone agrees with them but is too scared to say. The "silent majority" and they would also have huge media support.
I think a tory party split, rebranding into an overtly hard right party or creation of a new "real conservatives" is fairly likely. Just remember some of the batshit crazy things they said about brexit
“Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
I think a tory party split<br />
no chance. For one it would mean they’d never ever govern again, and if there is one thing you can be assured of, it’s that the Tory party will be desperate to be in power and do and say whatever they think gives them best chance to get there
i truely dispise the likes of braverman, she is a poisonous witch without an ounce of humanity.
Rwanda ruling incoming.......
and hardly any mention (if any) of ECHR. Basis of decision in other laws and acts, not ECHR. So, hopefully, an indirect statement about futility of blaming ECHR.
That's a pretty resounding "get stuffed!" from Lord Reed.
<edited for unintentional content>
That has blown them out of the water. Will upset cruella as it should keep her out of the news for a little while
Live footage from Cruellas house
They should re-instate her so that she can be fired again.
#Omnishambles
How much money has been spunked away on this?
Also, I think that the unit of wasted cash should be the Mone, with 1 Mn being £200,000,000.
If she was assaulted by a misguided right-wing EDL type fascist, who she stoked up to protect the country from wrong'uns, would they get a place in heaven?
It really was a no-win situation for the govt. Ruling for would have been a nightmare to actually enact and this ruling against, especially worded in this fashion is resounding critiscism of their position and a clear indication that money and time has been wasted. An open goal for the labour party if only they weren't defending an own goal at the other end of the pitch....
Paradoxically, I suspect the only winner here will be Braverman and her followers who can use this as an example of the wokerati plus an ineffectual PM once again thwarting the 'will of the hard working british taxpayer'
But Suella basically wrote a letter that said whatever the outcome, it was Rishis fault. His fault if they lose the appeal, and his fault if they win the appeal and fail to implement the policy.
That seems to me to be a very damning judgement. Not so much as "lose on a technicality" but " are you mad? - it was obvious to anyone with half a brain it was illegal"
How much money has been spunked away on this?
It ranges from the initial £120m payment to Rwanda, to about £300m I think. And to think, that money could have housed a few homeless people.
Or at least been used to pay the salaries of some more staff to process the existing backlog of asylum seekers plus grants to help those who are successful integrate into the country.
Rwanda policy would still be unlawful even if UK were not party to European convention on human rights, says supreme court
So even if Braverman had her " notwithstanding" clauses inserted it would still be illegal and I cannot see how those clauses would actually help at all.
It really is a devastating verdict
Appeals court was a split decision - how, given the SC assessment which was pretty unequivocal?!?
I guess that if Braverman was still Home Secretary she would be arguing for the Netanyahu solution to the problem:
At the heart of the conflict is a judiciary amendment, passed into law by a final vote of 64-0 in Israel's Parliament last week, that limits the unelected Supreme Court's ability to overrule governmental decisions it deems unreasonable.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/01/israels-netanyahu-rules-out-civil-war-after-mass-protests.html
As I have siad before the real issue withdrawing from the ECHR is that the declaration of human rights is enshrined in the acts that set up both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and this cannot be amended without permission from those parliaments. So even if the tories withdraw from it it will still apply in Scotland and Wales unless they take the nuclear option of closing both parliaments.
this sets up a huge constitutional issue and people in Scotland and wales would still be able to apply to the european court for protection under the convention
I'm afraid not a single sentence of this is correct. Sections 28 and 100 of the Scotland Act 1998 are relevant.
Original appeal was split 1 for, 2 against
Lord Chief Justice (at the time, since retired) thought the Rwandan govt were jolly good fellows and would abide by international law etc etc
"However, the lord chief justice reached the opposite conclusion. Agreeing with the High Court’s decision, Burnett said he believed the procedures in place under the Rwanda agreement and assurances given by Rwanda’s government were sufficient that there was no real risk of asylum seekers being returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or inhuman treatment.
Burnett said the chances of asylum seekers being returned to their countries of origin were low because Rwanda had no agreement with those countries. ‘Extensive monitoring arrangements of those sent to Rwanda and their asylum applications provided lawful protection. Arrangements put in place provide sufficient safeguards’."
If she was assaulted by a misguided right-wing EDL type fascist, who she stoked up to protect the country from wrong’uns, would they get a place in heaven?
Karma is a bitch.
Can you explain PCA? Genuine question. Ill have a look at the act but the two principles are correct IIRC - the ECHR is incorporated in the act and the act can only be altered with the consent of Holyrood.
Edit - I assume you mean this: "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland" which has no effect because the ECHR is incorporated in the act. Westminster canmake any law they want but they cannot remove the ECHR from the act. Withdrawing from the ECHR does not change this
Edit again - nothing in section100 alters this either
Im willing to be educated on this but I would like to see your reasoning
