Not a good time for the Conservative government in the UK

1414244464755

Comments

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Not good for the refugees, either, given the south coast's weather forecast for the next few days...
    :fearful:

    At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.

    However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

    AFZ

    Indeed. and I doubt if many tories give a toss about whether or not the refugees go to a watery grave...
    What is your evidence for this. The government does not want them to attempt the journey but attempts to bring in as many of them as possible on a border force vessel.

    O dear.

    You seem to have forgotten that it's not so long ago since one or other of the harpies who acted as Home Secretary (either Patel or Braverman - I can't offhand recall which of the evil pair it was) wanted the Navy and/or the Border Force to repel the small boats, with the risk of upsetting them, and causing multiple deaths by drowning. The Navy etc. quite rightly refused to countenance such a murderous proceeding.

    You may also have forgotten the right-wing outrage at the fact that the RNLI was also in the business of rescuing people - no matter what the reason for their plight - though I expect it was aired on your favourite *news* channel

    Now, give me some evidence that the government is showing compassion towards those risking their lives in the Channel.

    You need to concentrate on what has actually happened rather than what certain Home Secretaries have suppsoed to have said.

    The evidence is that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but as soon as they get to British waters they are transfered to a safe UK boat.

    Bullshit.
    Your response is noted but not appreciated. It gives me no encouragement to respond to you in future,

    :lol:
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Every time I see the thread title I want to give a fist pump .... but then I remember that it means that others are having a terrible time either by design or incompetence.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    stetson wrote: »
    Doesn't the Rwandan scheme seem calculated to deter people from trying to enter illegally? "Don't bother coming to the UK, we're just gonna ship you to Rwanda where you won't get any of the benefits you were hoping to get here."
    A deterrent that nobody knows about isn't much good as a deterrent.
    How people trying to enter the UK are supposed to find out about the Rwanda scheme I do not know. As I understand it, from other reliable posters on this site, no effort is being made to publicise the existence of the Rwanda scheme abroad.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Doesn't the Rwandan scheme seem calculated to deter people from trying to enter illegally? "Don't bother coming to the UK, we're just gonna ship you to Rwanda where you won't get any of the benefits you were hoping to get here."
    A deterrent that nobody knows about isn't much good as a deterrent.
    How people trying to enter the UK are supposed to find out about the Rwanda scheme I do not know. As I understand it, from other reliable posters on this site, no effort is being made to publicise the existence of the Rwanda scheme abroad.

    So you think that right now, people planning to migrate to the UK, some of whom are probably already in Europe, universally have no knowledge whatsoever of the government's plans?

    Even if that were true, I don't think it would take more than a few months of mass deportations for word to get back to the points-of-origin that entry into the UK will not, in fact, result in your staying there.
  • But it isn't a Mass Deportation scheme. AIUI it's limited to 300 people a year.
  • But it isn't a Mass Deportation scheme. AIUI it's limited to 300 people a year.

    Quite so.

    It's a cynical bit of performative cruelty, designed to appeal to the racist gammon, and to garner a few miserable votes for the tories.
  • But it isn't a Mass Deportation scheme. AIUI it's limited to 300 people a year.

    And contingent on the UK taking a nearly equivalent number of people from Rwanda
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2024
    But it isn't a Mass Deportation scheme. AIUI it's limited to 300 people a year.

    And contingent on the UK taking a nearly equivalent number of people from Rwanda

    O - I guess many (most?) people have forgotten about that...
    :confused:

    Still, I suppose those coming from Rwanda will be real people, as opposed to the *illegal* non-people being sent there.

    Batshit crazy, or what?
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Surely as a safe country there wouldn't be anyone seeking asylum anywhere else.
  • Good point!
    :wink:
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 2024
    But it isn't a Mass Deportation scheme. AIUI it's limited to 300 people a year.

    And contingent on the UK taking a nearly equivalent number of people from Rwanda

    O - I guess many (most?) people have forgotten about that...
    :confused:

    Still, I suppose those coming from Rwanda will be real people, as opposed to the *illegal* non-people being sent there.

    Batshit crazy, or what?

    Thanks for mentioning that part of it, @Bishops Finger. Wasn't aware of it.

    As for the type of people who'd be moving up from Rwanda, my obviously uneducated assumption would be that they are the sorta immigrants that the UK would want? Maybe needed professionals of some sort, and the Rwandan government is hoping they'll be sending remittances back home?

    Or am I totally misunderstanding what's going on here?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Surely as a safe country there wouldn't be anyone seeking asylum anywhere else.

    Is not France a safe country ?
  • Can you not see the irony of this, @Telford? It's alright for them to seek asylum in France but not here.

    Why should that be? On what grounds?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited March 2024
    Can you not see the irony of this, @Telford? It's alright for them to seek asylum in France but not here.

    Why should that be? On what grounds?

    Go back to the post I quoted. My comment was relevant as they are in a safe country before risking the channel.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    The Rogue wrote: »
    I see no evidence that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally. I see plenty of evidence that the government say they are trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but what they say and what they do have something wider than the English Channel between them.

    Doesn't the Rwandan scheme seem calculated to deter people from trying to enter illegally? "Don't bother coming to the UK, we're just gonna ship you to Rwanda where you won't get any of the benefits you were hoping to get here."

    Not that I support the plan, but it does seem a fairly good match for the agenda of keeping people out.

    There are laughably few people going to sent if it ever, to coin a phrase gets off the ground. People who are willing to risk their life to get here are not going to be put off by a small number being sent to Rhwanda.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    Surely as a safe country there wouldn't be anyone seeking asylum anywhere else.

    Is not France a safe country ?
    Are any of the people seeking asylum in the UK from France? No, they're from elsewhere and simply passing through - which under international law they're entitled to do. The majority of refugees move to another part of their own country, the majority of those who leave their own country seek refuge in a neighbouring country. A small minority move further from home for multiple valid reasons, there's no obligation for them to seek asylum in the first nation they get to. Small numbers of people are coming to claim asylum in the UK for a range of reasons - they might already have family or members of their home community living here who can provide temporary accommodation and help them settle into their host community, they might speak English but not French or German and value an ability to communicate, they might consider the UK owes them something (that would be particularly true of, say, Afghans who had assisted the UK military - but could include virtually anyone from the former empire who still consider the UK as "mother country" in some sense), they might simply believe that the UK is a rich country with a reputation for welcoming and helping those in need.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    'A rich counry with a reputation for welcoming and helping those in need.' As the UK used to be, before we were enjoined to make the country 'a hostile environment' for 'asylum seekers'. In historical fact, our benign reputation has never been wholly deserved. Riots against immigrant Huguenot weavers fleeing Catholic France come to mind. And Clifford's Tower in York.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Surely as a safe country there wouldn't be anyone seeking asylum anywhere else.

    Is not France a safe country ?
    Are any of the people seeking asylum in the UK from France? No, they're from elsewhere and simply passing through - which under international law they're entitled to do. The majority of refugees move to another part of their own country, the majority of those who leave their own country seek refuge in a neighbouring country. A small minority move further from home for multiple valid reasons, there's no obligation for them to seek asylum in the first nation they get to. Small numbers of people are coming to claim asylum in the UK for a range of reasons - they might already have family or members of their home community living here who can provide temporary accommodation and help them settle into their host community, they might speak English but not French or German and value an ability to communicate, they might consider the UK owes them something (that would be particularly true of, say, Afghans who had assisted the UK military - but could include virtually anyone from the former empire who still consider the UK as "mother country" in some sense), they might simply believe that the UK is a rich country with a reputation for welcoming and helping those in need.

    At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, I assume that anyone wishing to stay in France will do so - presumably some of those coming into France from elsewhere remain in that country for various reasons.

    Others will, for similar reasons, want to come to the UK.
  • ETA:

    This sort of thing might well compel more people to seek refuge here, given the UK's recent involvement in Afghanistan:

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/mar/28/taliban-edict-to-resume-stoning-women-to-death-met-with-horror



  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    A bit of cursory googling tells me that about 93000 people applied for asylum in the UK last year, compared to 167000 odd in France and well over 300000 in Germany.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2024

    A bit of cursory googling tells me that about 93000 people applied for asylum in the UK last year, compared to 167000 odd in France and well over 300000 in Germany.

    This kind of awkward *fact* is entirely ignored by the UK's racists and xenophobes, of course.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    A bit of cursory googling tells me that about 93000 people applied for asylum in the UK last year, compared to 167000 odd in France and well over 300000 in Germany.

    Google tells me that only a third of asylum seekers in France get accepted. I wonder where the others go to ?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2024
    Telford wrote: »
    A bit of cursory googling tells me that about 93000 people applied for asylum in the UK last year, compared to 167000 odd in France and well over 300000 in Germany.

    Google tells me that only a third of asylum seekers in France get accepted. I wonder where the others go to ?

    Citation needed.

    Actually, @la vie en rouge is probably better placed to answer, as she lives in France, and knows what she's talking about.
  • @Telford - where do you think they should go? Back to where they came from? Rwanda? Stay in France?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    @Telford - where do you think they should go? Back to where they came from? Rwanda? Stay in France?

    It should be a matter for the French authorities.
  • Telford wrote: »
    @Telford - where do you think they should go? Back to where they came from? Rwanda? Stay in France?

    It should be a matter for the French authorities.

    How is it a matter for the French authorities if someone claims asylum in the UK?
  • Here's another worry for Wishi-Washi and his pals - the spectre of Niggle The Garbage looming over them:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/29/labour-urges-rishi-sunak-rule-out-offering-nigel-farage-us-ambassador-job

    The thought of the unlovely Niggle going off to play footsie with Trump is appealing, if alarming, but I think our US cousins have enough to contend with.
    :fearful:
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    @Telford - where do you think they should go? Back to where they came from? Rwanda? Stay in France?

    It should be a matter for the French authorities.

    How is it a matter for the French authorities if someone claims asylum in the UK?
    The question was about asylum seekers in France
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    France already takes more than we do. There are separate threads on this subject so I won’t say more here
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    @Telford - where do you think they should go? Back to where they came from? Rwanda? Stay in France?

    It should be a matter for the French authorities.

    How is it a matter for the French authorities if someone claims asylum in the UK?
    The question was about asylum seekers in France

    No, it was about refugees transiting France on the way to the UK.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    I know who you mean. Yes, a good Constituency MP.

    I would never vote Conservative either but have come across Conservatives on a regional level that I greatly respect as people. Likewise Labour, Green, Lib Dem, Independent. Never UKIP or Reform though. I've never met an admirable activist for either of those. Back when UKIP was a thing they'd lose members or activists very quickly. Like some kind of cult. The sensible people bale out when they realise what they're getting into.

    It's policies that count though.

    As an aside, I heard some very hard left Labour friends observe recently that they don't go in for the 'Tory scum', 'Tory bastards' style rhetoric as it only reinforces the stereotypes that people may entertain of the Labour left.

    Heck, the media play those up sufficiently already without the Left adding to it themselves.

    I fully understand Hellish comments about the Conservatives. They certainly deserve them. But abuse on the doorsteps or in council chambers is unacceptable. I had a tiny taste of that when canvassing during Brexit but nothing in comparison with what Conservative canvassers face.

    This isn't natural Labour territory but they are garnering more support locally, but Labour activists tell me they don't face abuse on the doors round here.

    I must admit, I did chuckle when a Labour activist told me how when leafletting a posh estate in a county south-west of here, a little old lady appeared on her doorstep brandishing the leaflet she'd just received.

    The old lady was clearly irate and my friend expected a Tory tirade. Instead the old dear waved rhe leaflet and shouted, 'Get the bastard Tories out!'
  • Thank you for that delightful - and indeed encouraging! - anecdote @Gamma Gamaliel .

    Received wisdom (or the right wing press, which is by no means the same thing) would have us believe that, as your friend thought, such posh little old ladies are those who unhesitatingly support the tory bastards...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?

    Because it will do the country good if the Tories are completely routed into third or fourth place. Maybe then we’d have some chance of bringing in proportional representation at last.

    (Vague hope on my part, nothing more!)

    I’m a member of the Green Party but I’m voting tactically this year. Our Lib-Dem is a good person and the Tory MP has just resigned as minister and is not fighting the next election - so she has every chance of turning our place Lib-Dem.

    Here is a helpful site https://tactical.vote/

  • Yes, they deserve to be crushed, after inflicting austerity, Brexit, Boris and Liz Truss on us.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited March 2024
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?

    Because it will do the country good if the Tories are completely routed into third or fourth place. Maybe then we’d have some chance of bringing in proportional representation at last.

    Very few parties that have just been given an overwhelming mandate by FPTP are likely to turn around and spend political capital on electoral reform.

    That's far more likely to come as the result of horse trading by a coalition that relies on its minority members to pass legislation (ignoring the very peculiar place the Lib Dems have in the UKs political system).

    [Incidentally, this is also the strategy of Compass - the soft left Labour grouping - and was one of the factors leading up to the expulsion of Neal Lawson]
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?

    Because it will do the country good if the Tories are completely routed into third or fourth place. Maybe then we’d have some chance of bringing in proportional representation at last.

    (Vague hope on my part, nothing more!)

    I’m a member of the Green Party but I’m voting tactically this year. Our Lib-Dem is a good person and the Tory MP has just resigned as minister and is not fighting the next election - so she has every chance of turning our place Lib-Dem.

    Here is a helpful site https://tactical.vote/

    A party with a majority is not going to surrender to proportional representation. Why swop a good MP for someone of unknown quality?

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?

    Because it will do the country good if the Tories are completely routed into third or fourth place. Maybe then we’d have some chance of bringing in proportional representation at last.

    (Vague hope on my part, nothing more!)

    I’m a member of the Green Party but I’m voting tactically this year. Our Lib-Dem is a good person and the Tory MP has just resigned as minister and is not fighting the next election - so she has every chance of turning our place Lib-Dem.

    Here is a helpful site https://tactical.vote/

    A party with a majority is not going to surrender to proportional representation. Why swop a good MP for someone of unknown quality?

    Because a good constituency MP who still votes for all the tory shite is not a good MP. They need to get the message that no amount of constituency work makes up for terrible policies.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    A good MP who happens to be a Tory is free to stand as an independent on the platform of "you know I've worked hard for the constituency, and will continue to do so, but can't stomach support the tory shite". Unfortunately the way our electoral system works that will require a lot of work to overcome the vast majority of voters who never think about who their candidates are, just what party they represent, and who seem to think they're actually voting for Sunak or Starmer for PM.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?

    Because it will do the country good if the Tories are completely routed into third or fourth place. Maybe then we’d have some chance of bringing in proportional representation at last.

    (Vague hope on my part, nothing more!)

    I’m a member of the Green Party but I’m voting tactically this year. Our Lib-Dem is a good person and the Tory MP has just resigned as minister and is not fighting the next election - so she has every chance of turning our place Lib-Dem.

    Here is a helpful site https://tactical.vote/

    A party with a majority is not going to surrender to proportional representation. Why swop a good MP for someone of unknown quality?

    Because a good constituency MP who still votes for all the tory shite is not a good MP. They need to get the message that no amount of constituency work makes up for terrible policies.

    Might as well vote for robots then.

  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Telford wrote: »

    Might as well vote for robots then.

    They'd do better than the present shower.

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?

    Because it will do the country good if the Tories are completely routed into third or fourth place. Maybe then we’d have some chance of bringing in proportional representation at last.

    (Vague hope on my part, nothing more!)

    I’m a member of the Green Party but I’m voting tactically this year. Our Lib-Dem is a good person and the Tory MP has just resigned as minister and is not fighting the next election - so she has every chance of turning our place Lib-Dem.

    Here is a helpful site https://tactical.vote/

    A party with a majority is not going to surrender to proportional representation. Why swop a good MP for someone of unknown quality?

    Because a good constituency MP who still votes for all the tory shite is not a good MP. They need to get the message that no amount of constituency work makes up for terrible policies.

    Might as well vote for robots then.

    MPs can defy the whip if they have a mind of their own. Most don't.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    Might as well vote for robots then.

    They'd do better than the present shower.

    If you read Ian Dunt's book How Westminster works and why it doesn't, he makes a strong case that most MPs behave like robots...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    Might as well vote for robots then.

    They'd do better than the present shower.

    If you read Ian Dunt's book How Westminster works and why it doesn't, he makes a strong case that most MPs behave like robots...
    Are you on about the likes of Robot Jenrick and Robot Buckland ?
  • Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    Might as well vote for robots then.

    They'd do better than the present shower.

    If you read Ian Dunt's book How Westminster works and why it doesn't, he makes a strong case that most MPs behave like robots...
    Are you on about the likes of Robot Jenrick and Robot Buckland ?

    :lol:
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    A good MP who happens to be a Tory is free to stand as an independent on the platform of "you know I've worked hard for the constituency, and will continue to do so, but can't stomach support the tory shite". Unfortunately the way our electoral system works that will require a lot of work to overcome the vast majority of voters who never think about who their candidates are, just what party they represent, and who seem to think they're actually voting for Sunak or Starmer for PM.

    Not only that, but they need a small fortune to finance a campaign memorable enough to overcome the sums spent by the major parties.
    Ver few individuals can do that and win. The big parties have sewn up our democracy between them.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Within a constituency campaign spending caps mean an independent isn't greatly disadvantaged compared to very well funded parties. That would be OK if constituency campaigns could be divorced from national campaigns where vast sums can be spent. Of course that doesn't happen, in these days of TV leaders debates, which disadvantages leaders of smaller parties much less independents, individual candidates are often lucky to have even one hustings dragging the whole process further into a quasi-presidential election.

    That's before well funded parties feel able to overspend and absorb the fines into the cash from racist supporters.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?

    Well, if they are a good MP, a dedicated servant of their constituents, and good at sorting people's problems out, then that's great. But if you don't share their politics, you'd probably rather have someone that would vote a different way in the House.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    We live in a strong Conservative enclave in South Wales. Our MP seems to be good. I don’ like Con values so will not vote for him. He seems to be a rose in the thorns of the Cons

    The Conservatives will lose easily. What's the point in getting rid of a good MP?

    Well, if they are a good MP, a dedicated servant of their constituents, and good at sorting people's problems out, then that's great. But if you don't share their politics, you'd probably rather have someone that would vote a different way in the House.
    You might not share the politics of some Labour MPs

Sign In or Register to comment.