The latest 'Big Issue' has a sobering article about how that £140 million could have been better spent. I read it and wept. What is wrong with these people?
Correction: it is £240 million. Think what good this money could have done for the homeless, the marginialised .... the NHS ... schools ... My heart weaps. Psalm 37 (again!) this morning as I need to stop fretting about these ghastly people in government and carry on with my work. But really ... Lord have mercy ... on all of us
Or, even paying a ferry ticket for everyone who crossed the Channel in a small boat. That would have stopped the boats completely.
The latest 'Big Issue' has a sobering article about how that £140 million could have been better spent. I read it and wept. What is wrong with these people?
Correction: it is £240 million. Think what good this money could have done for the homeless, the marginialised .... the NHS ... schools ... My heart weaps. Psalm 37 (again!) this morning as I need to stop fretting about these ghastly people in government and carry on with my work. But really ... Lord have mercy ... on all of us
Or, even paying a ferry ticket for everyone who crossed the Channel in a small boat. That would have stopped the boats completely.
And we'd have been able to meet all our power requirements by harnessing the heat of the fuming gammon.
Rishi has managed to tame it somewhat but it was a still there
I wouldn't say Sunak has managed to tame the Tory far right at all. Ten years ago before the Brexit vote he was part of the far right of the party. Now the far right is even further to the right than he is, he's making a few belated half-hearted attempts to stand up to them.
I said elsewhere that the point of the Rwanda policy was to never be possible to implement it. They have proves (not least with Brexit) that their ability to deliver the dreams of the SEL to the right is always disastrous. So they are making announcements of things they will never have to deliver, and can blame the next government for reneging on.
And they are putting all of their energy into a plan that will never happen, can never happen, but makes the SEL happy. They KNOW it will never happen. That is not the point.
Well, I've no objection to 100s of millions of UK government money being given in aid to nations in need. But, it should be through the foreign aid budget, based on need and not to support any UK government policy.
But...but...surely we owe the Rwandans a great deal, they having been our loyal allies for hundreds of years, and giving us support and succour in our desperate hours of need...
As you say, proper foreign aid, through the proper channels - fine.
We have similarly unmarked graves just downstream from Arkland, on the uninhabited islands in the estuary. They contain the remains of convicts who died on the prison ships moored nearby - see the first chapter of Dickens' Great Expectations...
I don't know if there are any unmarked refugee graves in England yet, but, given the number of *illegal* people lost sight of by the Home Office, maybe there will be soon...
BTW, it's been pointed out in various places how the evil Rwanda plot has gone sadly awry.
With £240 million already spent, and another £50 million promised for 2024 (more grins from Paul Kagame), the only people to have been flown out to Rwanda have been three successive Home Secretaries.
They'll be financially bankrupt if they keep pouring money into Rwanda...or any other place to which all Horrid Foreign People Not Like Us should be (as they believe) consigned.
@Telford is right to say that the idea of the *Rwanda Three* is a bit of a laugh, nowadays, but it illustrates just how insane the whole thing has become.
And, in related news. With the reshuffle after Jenrick walked out, Rishi created his new Minister for Legal Migration (as though there's any other form of migration ... someone is only illegal in relation to migration if they overstay their visa or otherwise break the conditions of residence), to which he appointed Tom Pursglove,
That leaves the position of Minister for Disabled People vacant. Which isn't a position the Tories seem to consider important enough to have someone in place long enough to do much useful, about 2 years is the best they've managed. Now, clearly not important enough to them to fill at all.
All this concern over a few thousand desperate people fleeing war and persecution, but the government are clearly happy to let the millions of disabled people in this country without a minister to argue for their needs. And, a lot of them will be elderly, a demographic group traditionally inclined to vote Tory.
Hmm. Apparently ranking above education which has seen ten Secretaries of State in twelve years, seven in the last six years, four in the last seventeen months.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
And £240million (of OUR money!) in Rwanda's bank account...no wonder Paul Kagame is smiling all over his face...
What World-Beating™ fools we must appear to everyone else.
Apparently now it will be £400 million. I would refer interested parties to a book I'm reading at the moment, 'Humans; A Brief History of How We F&cked it All Up' by Tom Phillips. This whole sad farrago certainly derserves to be in the second edition.
Back to Ps. 37 for me ...
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
And, of course, in 2010 left the economy in a state that had basically recovered from the impact of the global economic crash. There were some small residual impact of the decision to bail out failing banks (eg: some banks partly in public ownership). But, overall a strong economy and a healthy set of government finances (and, I know there was the "no more money" joke note - as any economist knows a nation like the UK with a fiat currency can't run out of money, which isn't true of nations like Scotland or Wales dependent upon others to give them money). We've then had 13 years of government wrecking the economy and turning government finances into a joke, I hope that the incoming Labour government have a few people who are economically literate to replace the current lot of government economists who would fail the first year of an economics degree.
And, of course, in 2010 left the economy in a state that had basically recovered from the impact of the global economic crash. There were some small residual impact of the decision to bail out failing banks (eg: some banks partly in public ownership). But, overall a strong economy and a healthy set of government finances (and, I know there was the "no more money" joke note - as any economist knows a nation like the UK with a fiat currency can't run out of money, which isn't true of nations like Scotland or Wales dependent upon others to give them money). We've then had 13 years of government wrecking the economy and turning government finances into a joke, I hope that the incoming Labour government have a few people who are economically literate to replace the current lot of government economists who would fail the first year of an economics degree.
Quite, although no doubt the tories could, if Rhyming Slang were to go, dredge up some other spawn of Shub-Niggurath (The Black Goat Of The Woods, With A Thousand Young) to replace him.
The bottom of the tory barrel has not yet been reached, I fear.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
The economy was already steady in 1997.
What Union rights were destroyed?
The right to secondary action, for starters. It gave carte blanche to employers to divide and conquer by splitting into divisions or outsourcing and pretending they had separate disputes. Compare with the action Swedish unions have been able to take to combat Tesla's union busting tactics.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
The economy was already steady in 1997.
What Union rights were destroyed?
The right to secondary action, for starters. It gave carte blanche to employers to divide and conquer by splitting into divisions or outsourcing and pretending they had separate disputes. Compare with the action Swedish unions have been able to take to combat Tesla's union busting tactics.
This article might also help to answer @Telford's question:
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
The economy was already steady in 1997.
What Union rights were destroyed?
The right to secondary action, for starters. It gave carte blanche to employers to divide and conquer by splitting into divisions or outsourcing and pretending they had separate disputes. Compare with the action Swedish unions have been able to take to combat Tesla's union busting tactics.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
The economy was already steady in 1997.
What Union rights were destroyed?
The right to secondary action, for starters. It gave carte blanche to employers to divide and conquer by splitting into divisions or outsourcing and pretending they had separate disputes. Compare with the action Swedish unions have been able to take to combat Tesla's union busting tactics.
This article might also help to answer @Telford's question:
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
I'd have to agree. As happened under Alec Douglas-Home 33 years earlier.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
The economy was already steady in 1997.
What Union rights were destroyed?
The right to secondary action, for starters. It gave carte blanche to employers to divide and conquer by splitting into divisions or outsourcing and pretending they had separate disputes. Compare with the action Swedish unions have been able to take to combat Tesla's union busting tactics.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
The economy was already steady in 1997.
What Union rights were destroyed?
The right to secondary action, for starters. It gave carte blanche to employers to divide and conquer by splitting into divisions or outsourcing and pretending they had separate disputes. Compare with the action Swedish unions have been able to take to combat Tesla's union busting tactics.
This article might also help to answer @Telford's question:
According to the ONS, strikes between June and Dec 2022 (latest data available) there were 2.47 million days lost to strikes. That's basically the same number of days lost in that period as were lost in just July 1989 (mostly dock workers strikes), or the monthly days lost to strikes for the whole period of March 1984 to Feb 1985 (coal miners strikes). And, that's without going further back in history to before the Conservative governments started to remove the right to strike as one of the pillars of democracy.
According to the ONS, strikes between June and Dec 2022 (latest data available) there were 2.47 million days lost to strikes. That's basically the same number of days lost in that period as were lost in just July 1989 (mostly dock workers strikes), or the monthly days lost to strikes for the whole period of March 1984 to Feb 1985 (coal miners strikes). And, that's without going further back in history to before the Conservative governments started to remove the right to strike as one of the pillars of democracy.
The right to strike is a basic principle of human rights. It is one of the controls that stop employers from just doing what the hell they want with employees terms and conditions and thereby de-humanising them.
I am not at all surprised that a government that has no qualms about sending desperate people to Rwanda should also have no qualms about removing basic human rights from its own population. There is a pattern.
The fact that it is so much harder to call a strike today suggests that when they do happen employees are really pissed off with something and employers and/or the government should address the issues rather than attack the strikers.
Imagine the stink the right of the Tory Party would raise at the suggestion that a referendum requires support of 50%+1 of the electorate - which is the requirement for calling a strike. If that was the case we'd at least have avoided the all-round disaster of Brexit.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
The economy was already steady in 1997.
What Union rights were destroyed?
You appear to have missed my bit about boom and bust. The country was in a boom phase at a least not a bust. As I recall it was expected that if the Cons continued in control a bust was not far away.
Governments - of whatever shade - often don't (or maybe never) have complete control of the economy, but are subject to outside influences.
The problems arise when they fail to cope with those influences, but at least Darling (RIPARIG) and Brown had steady hands...
The present Gang of Gibbering Gobshites are fixated on bloody Rwanda, and are even reported to be plotting to throw down Sushi Rinak, and saddle us with yet another unelected and unwanted PM...
Well, another Conservative Party leadership contest requires someone willing to be PM for 6 months and then ousted for having lead them to electoral defeat (assuming they even retain their seat in the election). Those who want the job of party leader may be wanting to wait until after the election when they can promise what they want without actually needing to deliver.
Yes, they'd become even more completely bonkers than they are already (IYSWIM) if they assassinated Wishi-Washi now, but who knows?
Some of the swivel-eyed loons are loonish enough to at least try.
I guess that a tory disaster at the next General Election will result in the official formation of the neo-fascist party that's in the offing now. If there are any gods and/or justice, it will be a small party with not many MPs...
@Alan Cresswell wrote: Well, another Conservative Party leadership contest requires someone willing to be PM for 6 months and then ousted for having lead them to electoral defeat (assuming they even retain their seat in the election). Those who want the job of party leader may be wanting to wait until after the election when they can promise what they want without actually needing to deliver.
You'd have thought that ought to be obvious, and that replacing their leader by somebody else that a different lot of them wouldn't serve comfortably under would make that result even more certain.
But who knows? Is it still possible to be both sane and an active member of the Conservative Party?
Yes, they'd become even more completely bonkers than they are already (IYSWIM) if they assassinated Wishi-Washi now, but who knows?
Some of the swivel-eyed loons are loonish enough to at least try.
I guess that a tory disaster at the next General Election will result in the official formation of the neo-fascist party that's in the offing now. If there are any gods and/or justice, it will be a small party with not many MPs...
But the UK has already got one of those in Reform. What market, surely, is there for another one?
As to whether there's a market for yet another neo-fascist gang (I'd forgotten about Reform. Silly me ), who can say? Given the amount of general insanity rife in the tory party, I reckon that further fissiparous behaviour is quite likely...
Well, another Conservative Party leadership contest requires someone willing to be PM for 6 months and then ousted for having lead them to electoral defeat (assuming they even retain their seat in the election). Those who want the job of party leader may be wanting to wait until after the election when they can promise what they want without actually needing to deliver.
Well, quite.
Shoring up the party and preparing to lose the next election is the traditional task of some "elder statesman" type within the party (cf. Michael Howard taking on the leadership after Iain Duncan Smith's disastrous period as leader of the opposition.) Viable candidates for the caretaker role might be John Redwood or David Davis, except that I can't imagine the Tories uniting behind either man.
Some, apparently, think that their Dream Ticket would be Boris + Nigel. Wake me up, someone, before it happens.
It's unlikely, I think (and hope), as neither of those two infernal gobshites would want to take second place - each would want to be Top Dog, and I can't see them ruling as some sort of duumvir...
If one thinks they’ll lose their seat anyway, they might throw their hat in the ring regardless - because money, and they are still likely to last longer than Liz Truss.
Well, another Conservative Party leadership contest requires someone willing to be PM for 6 months and then ousted for having lead them to electoral defeat (assuming they even retain their seat in the election). Those who want the job of party leader may be wanting to wait until after the election when they can promise what they want without actually needing to deliver.
Well, quite.
Shoring up the party and preparing to lose the next election is the traditional task of some "elder statesman" type within the party (cf. Michael Howard taking on the leadership after Iain Duncan Smith's disastrous period as leader of the opposition.) Viable candidates for the caretaker role might be John Redwood or David Davis, except that I can't imagine the Tories uniting behind either man.
John Redwood is more elderly crackpot than elder statesman. Maybe they'll reinstate May.
Comments
And we'd have been able to meet all our power requirements by harnessing the heat of the fuming gammon.
And they are putting all of their energy into a plan that will never happen, can never happen, but makes the SEL happy. They KNOW it will never happen. That is not the point.
It is £240M in an attempt to retain a few votes.
What World-Beating™ fools we must appear to everyone else.
As you say, proper foreign aid, through the proper channels - fine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2023/dec/08/revealed-more-than-1000-unmarked-graves-discovered-along-eu-migration-routes
We have similarly unmarked graves just downstream from Arkland, on the uninhabited islands in the estuary. They contain the remains of convicts who died on the prison ships moored nearby - see the first chapter of Dickens' Great Expectations...
I don't know if there are any unmarked refugee graves in England yet, but, given the number of *illegal* people lost sight of by the Home Office, maybe there will be soon...
In stately conclave met
Alas, alas for England
They have no graves as yet
No, because the Devil looks after his own...
With £240 million already spent, and another £50 million promised for 2024 (more grins from Paul Kagame), the only people to have been flown out to Rwanda have been three successive Home Secretaries.
Shome mishtake, shurely? (Ed.)
The government need to abandon the vote next week.
You're right, of course, and I can't help but agree.
Alas they have nothing else. They are morally bankrupt. They came close to being financially bankrupt as well.
@Telford is right to say that the idea of the *Rwanda Three* is a bit of a laugh, nowadays, but it illustrates just how insane the whole thing has become.
That leaves the position of Minister for Disabled People vacant. Which isn't a position the Tories seem to consider important enough to have someone in place long enough to do much useful, about 2 years is the best they've managed. Now, clearly not important enough to them to fill at all.
All this concern over a few thousand desperate people fleeing war and persecution, but the government are clearly happy to let the millions of disabled people in this country without a minister to argue for their needs. And, a lot of them will be elderly, a demographic group traditionally inclined to vote Tory.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Apparently now it will be £400 million. I would refer interested parties to a book I'm reading at the moment, 'Humans; A Brief History of How We F&cked it All Up' by Tom Phillips. This whole sad farrago certainly derserves to be in the second edition.
Back to Ps. 37 for me ...
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
*looks at Rachel Reeves*
*sighs*
Just so. It's hard to conceive of a worse government than the present gang of useless gobshites.
Yes, I know - be careful what you wish for...
Hence the sigh rather than just "FUCK NO".
The bottom of the tory barrel has not yet been reached, I fear.
The economy was already steady in 1997.
What Union rights were destroyed?
The right to secondary action, for starters. It gave carte blanche to employers to divide and conquer by splitting into divisions or outsourcing and pretending they had separate disputes. Compare with the action Swedish unions have been able to take to combat Tesla's union busting tactics.
This article might also help to answer @Telford's question:
https://theconversation.com/how-consecutive-conservative-governments-destroyed-union-rights-a-timeline-of-the-uks-anti-strike-laws-since-the-1970s-198178
Thanks Thanks. I have read it all but not contributed. It does not explain how destroyed unions have been able to call so many strikes this year
I'd have to agree. As happened under Alec Douglas-Home 33 years earlier.
There have actually been very few strikes. There have just been very loud complaints about the few there are.
The right to strike is a basic principle of human rights. It is one of the controls that stop employers from just doing what the hell they want with employees terms and conditions and thereby de-humanising them.
I am not at all surprised that a government that has no qualms about sending desperate people to Rwanda should also have no qualms about removing basic human rights from its own population. There is a pattern.
The problems arise when they fail to cope with those influences, but at least Darling (RIPARIG) and Brown had steady hands...
The present Gang of Gibbering Gobshites are fixated on bloody Rwanda, and are even reported to be plotting to throw down Sushi Rinak, and saddle us with yet another unelected and unwanted PM...
Some of the swivel-eyed loons are loonish enough to at least try.
I guess that a tory disaster at the next General Election will result in the official formation of the neo-fascist party that's in the offing now. If there are any gods and/or justice, it will be a small party with not many MPs...
But who knows? Is it still possible to be both sane and an active member of the Conservative Party? But the UK has already got one of those in Reform. What market, surely, is there for another one?
As to whether there's a market for yet another neo-fascist gang (I'd forgotten about Reform. Silly me
Well, quite.
Shoring up the party and preparing to lose the next election is the traditional task of some "elder statesman" type within the party (cf. Michael Howard taking on the leadership after Iain Duncan Smith's disastrous period as leader of the opposition.) Viable candidates for the caretaker role might be John Redwood or David Davis, except that I can't imagine the Tories uniting behind either man.
It's unlikely, I think (and hope), as neither of those two infernal gobshites would want to take second place - each would want to be Top Dog, and I can't see them ruling as some sort of duumvir...
John Redwood is more elderly crackpot than elder statesman. Maybe they'll reinstate May.