New Tory Leader

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

10 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

What a sh*t cartoon.   Why would He Man be on a Thundercats duvet cover?  Do it again.

Cheap Chinese replica?

[horsefly 4,310]

3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Zero boats in 2021, seven boats in 2022, four boats in 2023, compared to over three hundred boats in 2013. If we get a reduction on that scale I think most would class the policy as a success wouldn’t you? 

The Australian navy have faced serious accusations of driving boats out to sea and letting them sink. As for the asylum seekers offshored, it is done under appalling conditions on an island at a cost of more than $2m per person. None of the aspects of the Australian execution of their system would ever be acceptable to the UK.

[horsefly 4,310]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

Only until you hold your hands up and admit it has made the situation far worse. Deal? 

Even David Cameron admitted in an interview  that Brexit had ruined the best opportunity we had for dealing with boat arrivals. The Dublin III regulation allowed us to return immediately anyone who turned up on our shores from whence they arrived. Brexit brought the Dublin III regulation to an end.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

24 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Even David Cameron admitted in an interview  that Brexit had ruined the best opportunity we had for dealing with boat arrivals. The Dublin III regulation allowed us to return immediately anyone who turned up on our shores from whence they arrived. Brexit brought the Dublin III regulation to an end.

Britain returned just 209 migrants since 2013 under Dublin regulations, so Brexit made very little impact on the numbers arriving. 

[Yellow Fever 3,821]

30 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Even David Cameron admitted in an interview  that Brexit had ruined the best opportunity we had for dealing with boat arrivals. The Dublin III regulation allowed us to return immediately anyone who turned up on our shores from whence they arrived. Brexit brought the Dublin III regulation to an end.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/24/leaving-echr-small-boat-crossings-lord-cameron/

It's the Telegraph afterall 😉

 

Edited April 25 by Yellow Fever

[A Load of Squit 5,215]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

Britain returned just 209 migrants since 2013 under Dublin regulations, so Brexit made very little impact on the numbers arriving. 

The number of returns fell after 2010 when Cameron dismantled the asylum processing system that dealt with cases in weeks, since then the backlog has increased, the costs have increased and the lies about the asylum process have increased.

Once again you've posted something that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

[Herman 9,820]

😁

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

The Australian navy have faced serious accusations of driving boats out to sea and letting them sink. As for the asylum seekers offshored, it is done under appalling conditions on an island at a cost of more than $2m per person. None of the aspects of the Australian execution of their system would ever be acceptable to the UK.

$2m dollars per person because there aren't that many of them any more.

This is deterrence; it's making a system so unattractive that people don't try in the first place. The reason we get so many is because we're too soft. Countries that make a hostile environment avoid the problems that come with letting in  undocumented migrants unvetted.

Nobody wants them. France doesn't want them; Italy doesn't want them; Greece doesn't want them. They're not wanted anywhere. Every single person who crosses from France, a perfectly safe country, avoiding immigration to the UK is abusing international rules.

Edited April 25 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 866]

A genuine question, if the Rwanda scheme did get underway would people on here be happy if it did work as intended and acted as a deterrent and stopped the bulk of the boat crossings? Or are you hoping it fails? 

[Fen Canary 866]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

$2m dollars per person because there aren't that many of them any more.

This is deterrence; it's making a system so unattractive that people don't try in the first place. The reason we get so many is because we're too soft. Countries that make a hostile environment avoid the problems that come with letting in  undocumented migrants unvetted.

Nobody wants them. France doesn't want them; Italy doesn't want them; Greece doesn't want them. They're not wanted anywhere. Every single person who crosses from France to the UK is abusing international rules.

If it costs triple per asylum seeker but you end up with 90% less landing on your shores then it’s a cost saver.

I agree, attitude have hardened. If we had a scheme whereby a set amount was agreed in Parliament annually and they were lifted directly from the various refugee camps in combat zones (Sudan etc) then I think there would be much less opposition. The current system simply feels like an abuse of the wests generosity 

[Aggy 766]

12 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

The reason we get so many is because we're too soft. Countries that make a hostile environment avoid the problems that come with letting in  undocumented migrants unvetted.

 

Wow.

Edited April 25 by Aggy

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

1 minute ago, Aggy said:

Wow.

Problems like the 'Muslim turned Christian' who threw acid in a womans face the other week; problems like the Moroccan asylum seeker Islamic extremist who stabbed his flat mate 'because of Israel' and went out and killed a 70 year old on the street for the same reason. Problems like those in the pro-Palestinian protests calling for death to Jews and the destruction of Israel.

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

This is an extract from an email being circulated by Open Britain -  In a terrifyingly matter-of-fact interview with the Sun’s Harry Cole, Steve Bannon, the architect of Donald Trump's polarising presidency, gave Farage a glowing endorsement and set out how he would go about succeeding Keir Starmer as Prime Minister. Bannon believes that Farage could soon ride a wave of populist sentiment all the way to Number 10, especially if the Tories take a drubbing in the next election. (Spoiler: They’re going to.) His strategic advice? Take a page from the MAGA playbook and stage a hostile takeover of the Conservative Party. And now, in his most recent email to his supporters, Farage has given his strongest hint yet at a potential return to frontline politics. The prospect of Farage at the helm of a radicalised Tory party, steering the UK down a path of increased nationalism and xenophobia, is deeply troubling. At Open Britain, we've been warning about this possibility for some time now. With these brazen comms, it’s starting to look less like a potential distant nightmare and more a well-planned future reality. The 2029 election may seem a long way off, but the foundations for the profound political shift it could bring are being laid now. We cannot afford to be complacent. It's essential we spend the next five years growing, organising, mobilising, and fighting for the values that define us as a nation - openness, tolerance, and unity. We need to counter the siren song of populism with a positive vision of a Britain that works for everyone and secure the functional democracy needed to deliver it. The next five years will be a pivotal period in our history. The decisions we make - and the policies the next government implements - will shape our country for generations to come.    This is the article in The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27534918/nigel-farage-prime-minister-after-keir-starmer/

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

On 25/04/2024 at 19:36, Fen Canary said:

A genuine question, if the Rwanda scheme did get underway would people on here be happy if it did work as intended and acted as a deterrent and stopped the bulk of the boat crossings? Or are you hoping it fails? 

That's a bit like hoping Norwich win the Premier League. Hope doesn't matter. The Rwanda scheme won't act as a deterrent and I'd be very surprised if a plane actually took off. I suspect that Sunak would be surprised too, this was never about solving the problem, it's about winning votes by blaming leftie lawyers and the ECHR. 

I hate to tell you this but the Conservative leadership doesn't see immigration as a problem, they see it as a way of winning cheap votes from simple people. This sort of politics worked in Europe 90 years ago and they're simply hoping it works again and saves them from oblivion. 

Edited April 27 by dylanisabaddog

[Fen Canary 866]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That's a bit like hoping Norwich win the Premier League. Hope doesn't matter. The Rwanda scheme won't act as a deterrent and I'd be very surprised if a plane actually took off. I suspect that Sunak would be surprised too, this was never about solving the problem, it's about winning votes by blaming leftie lawyers and the ECHR. 

I hate to tell you this but the Conservative leadership doesn't see immigration as a problem, they see it as a way of winning cheap votes from simple people. This sort of politics worked in Europe 90 years ago and they're simply hoping it works again and saves them from oblivion. 

That’s not answering the question is it. Will you be happy if it did severely reduce the numbers of those illegally crossing the Channel if the scheme got going? Or would you prefer it if the policy failed and had no effect? 

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

That’s not answering the question is it. Will you be happy if it did severely reduce the numbers of those illegally crossing the Channel if the scheme got going? Or would you prefer it if the policy failed and had no effect? 

There is absolutely no point in answering that question. Quite simply, it won't work. That's hardly surprising as none of the politicians involved ever thought it would work. 

What I hope for is irrelevant. But if it helps, I hope we win the play offs and qualify for the Champions League next season. 

 

Edited April 27 by dylanisabaddog

[Fen Canary 866]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

This is an extract from an email being circulated by Open Britain -  In a terrifyingly matter-of-fact interview with the Sun’s Harry Cole, Steve Bannon, the architect of Donald Trump's polarising presidency, gave Farage a glowing endorsement and set out how he would go about succeeding Keir Starmer as Prime Minister. Bannon believes that Farage could soon ride a wave of populist sentiment all the way to Number 10, especially if the Tories take a drubbing in the next election. (Spoiler: They’re going to.) His strategic advice? Take a page from the MAGA playbook and stage a hostile takeover of the Conservative Party. And now, in his most recent email to his supporters, Farage has given his strongest hint yet at a potential return to frontline politics. The prospect of Farage at the helm of a radicalised Tory party, steering the UK down a path of increased nationalism and xenophobia, is deeply troubling. At Open Britain, we've been warning about this possibility for some time now. With these brazen comms, it’s starting to look less like a potential distant nightmare and more a well-planned future reality. The 2029 election may seem a long way off, but the foundations for the profound political shift it could bring are being laid now. We cannot afford to be complacent. It's essential we spend the next five years growing, organising, mobilising, and fighting for the values that define us as a nation - openness, tolerance, and unity. We need to counter the siren song of populism with a positive vision of a Britain that works for everyone and secure the functional democracy needed to deliver it. The next five years will be a pivotal period in our history. The decisions we make - and the policies the next government implements - will shape our country for generations to come.    This is the article in The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27534918/nigel-farage-prime-minister-after-keir-starmer/

In reality he would probably have to join the Tories as he’s in a different situation now compared to his time with UKIP.

With UKIP he was a single issue party and everybody knew what he wanted. He didn’t have to actually win any seats to have influence, he just had to split the vote enough in marginal seats for the larger parties to take notice and offer the referendum in an attempt to put the issue to bed.

Reform however I’ve no real idea of what they’re trying to achieve. They’re polling high at the moment simply as a protest vote to hurt the Tories, but the Tories won’t always be as useless as they are currently and when they pick up again Reform will disappear with it as their vote is too spread out to win any seats in the meantime so joining the Tories is his only real shot at having any influence.

Where I think Bannon is wrong though is that he doesn’t appreciate our system is vastly different from the States, and the leader of a party doesn’t have anywhere near as much power to force through a hostile takeover as it were. Unless you can convince your fellow MPs to back your ideas you’re dead in the water before you’ve even started 

[Fen Canary 866]

3 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

There is absolutely no point in answering that question. Quite simply, it won't work. That's hardly surprising as none of the politicians involved ever thought it would work. 

What I hope for is irrelevant. But if it helps, I hope we win the play offs and qualify for the Champions League next season. 

It is relevant because it shows whether you’re judging the idea on its merits, or dismissing it for partisan reasons simply because either it’s been proposed by the wrong side or because you don’t want to be seen to be siding with the “simple” voters (as you called them earlier) who want to see the numbers reduced.

Unless you say otherwise I’m going to assume you hope the policy fails and the boats keep coming

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

In reality he would probably have to join the Tories as he’s in a different situation now compared to his time with UKIP.

With UKIP he was a single issue party and everybody knew what he wanted. He didn’t have to actually win any seats to have influence, he just had to split the vote enough in marginal seats for the larger parties to take notice and offer the referendum in an attempt to put the issue to bed.

Reform however I’ve no real idea of what they’re trying to achieve. They’re polling high at the moment simply as a protest vote to hurt the Tories, but the Tories won’t always be as useless as they are currently and when they pick up again Reform will disappear with it as their vote is too spread out to win any seats in the meantime so joining the Tories is his only real shot at having any influence.

Where I think Bannon is wrong though is that he doesn’t appreciate our system is vastly different from the States, and the leader of a party doesn’t have anywhere near as much power to force through a hostile takeover as it were. Unless you can convince your fellow MPs to back your ideas you’re dead in the water before you’ve even started 

I don't know where to start. 

Current polls put Reform on around 12% and winning zero seats. So I'm baffled as to why you think they're polling high! 

There is no "probably" about it. He'd have to join the party in order to lead it. 

He'd almost certainly have to win a by-election in order to lead the party. That seems unlikely as he's previously failed to win 7 times out of 7. 

"The Tories won't be as useless as they currently are". Hmmm. It looks like there are going to be less than 100 of them left so I wouldn't put anything past them. They may actually become a fringe party. What is pretty certain is that they'll spend the next couple of years stabbing each other in the back. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

13 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

It is relevant because it shows whether you’re judging the idea on its merits, or dismissing it for partisan reasons simply because either it’s been proposed by the wrong side or because you don’t want to be seen to be siding with the “simple” voters (as you called them earlier) who want to see the numbers reduced.

Unless you say otherwise I’m going to assume you hope the policy fails and the boats keep coming

Yes I am including you as a 'simple voter' because you're clearly quite incapable of understanding that my hopes are completely irrelevant. I hope that no one else dies trying to cross the channel but my hope won't stop that from happening. A genuine solution to the problem would. But I assume you prefer the drowning solution? 

Judging the policy on its merits is quite easy. It won't achieve the alleged aim. It may however con a few people into voting Conservative. 

Edited April 27 by dylanisabaddog

[Fen Canary 866]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Yes I am including you as a 'simple voter' because you're clearly quite incapable of understanding that my hopes are completely irrelevant. 

Judging the policy on its merits is quite easy. It won't achieve the alleged aim. 

You can’t answer a simple question can you? Would you be happy IF it did reduce the boats, or would you prefer that it fails? 

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

You can’t answer a simple question can you? Would you be happy IF it did reduce the boats, or would you prefer that it fails? 

You're asking a truly stupid question. You're asking me if I hope something will succeed when I know it will fail. 

There is no point in hoping for something to happen. 

[Herman 9,820]

The trouble is that it needs to fail otherwise this government will come up with even nastier and crueler policies. A desperate measure from a desperate bunch.

[Fen Canary 866]

16 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I don't know where to start. 

Current polls put Reform on around 12% and winning zero seats. So I'm baffled as to why you think they're polling high! 

There is no "probably" about it. He'd have to join the party in order to lead it. 

He'd almost certainly have to win a by-election in order to lead the party. That seems unlikely as he's previously failed to win 7 times out of 7. 

"The Tories won't be as useless as they currently are". Hmmm. It looks like there are going to be less than 100 of them left so I wouldn't put anything past them. They may actually become a fringe party. What is pretty certain is that they'll spend the next couple of years stabbing each other in the back. 

They’ve consistently been the third most popular party (in terms of votes) for quite a while now. In our system that makes it incredibly hard for small parties to get a look in most people would say that polling quite high for their situation.

Him losing 7 times with UKIP means nothing if he competes next time as a Tory. The FPTP system would increase his chances of winning enormously.

The Tories won’t disappear for the simple reason there’s nobody to replace them. The UK tends to lean slightly centre right (at least culturally) so to assume we’re not going to have a centre right party going forward is just silly. Until there’s a viable alternative for the right to drift away to then the Tories are here to stay, and once one side have been in for a few terms people tend to want a change 

[Fen Canary 866]

13 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You're asking a truly stupid question. You're asking me if I hope something will succeed when I know it will fail. 

There is no point in hoping for something to happen. 

So am I right in assuming you don’t want the boats to stop crossing the Channel? Or you just don’t want them to stop while the Tories are in power? 

 

[Herman 9,820]

How to stop the boats in three easy steps;

Don't go on wars, destabilising countries and then run off before they are reasonably functioning states again. See Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq for examples.

Don't scrap foreign aid which helped poor states become better places to stay in.

Don't vote for things that scrap international agreements that close one border but leave the other side wide open.

[Fen Canary 866]

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

How to stop the boats in three easy steps;

Don't go on wars, destabilising countries and then run off before they are reasonably functioning states again. See Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq for examples.

Don't scrap foreign aid which helped poor states become better places to stay in.

Don't vote for things that scrap international agreements that close one border but leave the other side wide open.

Fair enough, you think that would be more effective than the Rwanda plan.

However would you be happy if the Rwanda policy did end up being successful, even if you don’t currently believe it will be? 

[Herman 9,820]

15 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Fair enough, you think that would be more effective than the Rwanda plan.

However would you be happy if the Rwanda policy did end up being successful, even if you don’t currently believe it will be? 

Not really, no. As mentioned before if it works even worse policies will be dreamt up, people will clap along and God knows where we'll end up as a country.

[A Load of Squit 5,215]

18 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Fair enough, you think that would be more effective than the Rwanda plan.

However would you be happy if the Rwanda policy did end up being successful, even if you don’t currently believe it will be? 

'If' 😀

The RWNJ's standard promise of jam tomorrow.

 

 

[Fen Canary 866]

Just now, Herman said:

Not really, no. As mentioned before if it works even worse policies will be dreamt up, people will clap along and God knows where we'll end up as a country.

So you only want the problem fixed if it’s done via your preferred method?

I personally don’t care who stops the boats or how they do it, as long as they are stopped. It’s a problem that has been allowed to fester for too long, and I want a solution before we start seeing the violence that’s happening in Ireland where hotels housing migrants are now regularly being attacked