Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...



Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
7,028
Create a country where nobody feels secure and hope is stripped away from new generations and then tell them to buck up. Nice.

View attachment 179061
I've recently lost a family member to suicide.

I'm raging that a government minister would be using mental health seemingly for some sort of wedge issue.
 




The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,543
West is BEST
I've recently lost a family member to suicide.

I'm raging that a government minister would be using mental health seemingly for some sort of wedge issue.
There is no depths they will not plumb to try and appeal to the “anti-woke” sector of the electorate.

It matters not. The Tory’s are a corpulent, moribund entity. These are the last howls of a dying beast.

May they rot in Hell. In fiery pain. They must never be allowed to gain power again.
 


rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,578
Interesting view of the house of lords exercising the democratic rights of a Sovereign state from a senior Tory and GB News today

House of Lords peers are sneering at the British people and supporting people traffickers, says Jacob Rees-Mogg​

Now we can attack the puffed up panjandrums of the quangocracy who sneer at the British people and support the people traffickers by their actions.

https://www.gbnews.com/opinion/jacob-rees-mogg-house-of-lords-peers-sneering-british-people

Are there really people stupid enough to keep falling for this ?

No words, start digging :wanker:
There is a simple question for the Tories to answer (and I'm surprised that Starmer hasn't asked it at PMQs). It is this.

"If Rwanda is a "safe country" why are we granting asylum to people from Rwanda?"

As for the minister from the 19th century, I think Nanny needs to make him go to bed earlier as he is getting terribly grumpy.
 


Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
57,938
hassocks
There is a simple question for the Tories to answer (and I'm surprised that Starmer hasn't asked it at PMQs). It is this.

"If Rwanda is a "safe country" why are we granting asylum to people from Rwanda?"
I would not go down that route, the easy answer is why are we letting people stay from France etc.
 






Pevenseagull

Anti-greed coalition
Jul 20, 2003
19,651




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,219
Faversham
I've recently lost a family member to suicide.

I'm raging that a government minister would be using mental health seemingly for some sort of wedge issue.
Precisely. And hence my harsh comment above. I am very angry with this and hope it is seen for what it is. These ghouls would pick the flesh off a dying child if they thought it would buy them some votes.
 






Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,219
Faversham
I would not go down that route, the easy answer is why are we letting people stay from France etc.
The question is how have the tories deigned to neglect our 'borders' for 13 years, then to weaponize an issue they themselves created (channel crossings), only for the public to fall for their hubris and blame woke labour. It beggars belief.

What do you want to do with people 'from France' anyway? Throw them into the sea?

This is all an elegant example of how a situation is deliberately engineered so that the 'government' can bring forth a Final Solution.

And sensible people are still falling for it.
 
Last edited:






WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,882
There is a simple question for the Tories to answer (and I'm surprised that Starmer hasn't asked it at PMQs). It is this.

"If Rwanda is a "safe country" why are we granting asylum to people from Rwanda?"

As for the minister from the 19th century, I think Nanny needs to make him go to bed earlier as he is getting terribly grumpy.

I heard a Tory MP on the radio a couple of days ago trying to defend it.

"The intention is to discourage people from coming by threatening them with Rwanda"
followed by "Rwanda is a perfectly safe place to go".

To which the interviewer asked the rather obvious question "If Rwanda is perfectly safe, why would it act as a deterrent ?"

But apparently there's still a significant percentage who have learnt f*** all from the last 8 years and would still vote for this idiocy :dunce:
 


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,882
The question is how have the tories deigned to neglect our 'borders' for 13 years, then to weaponize an issue they themselves created (channel crossings), only for the public to fall for their hubris and blame woke labour. It beggars belief.

What do you want to do with people 'from France' anyway? Throw them into the sea?

This is all an elegant example of how a situation is deliberately engineered so that the 'government' and bring forth a Final Solution.

And sensible people are still falling for it.

And there is a very simple solution which has been explained numerous times which would turn these 'costs' into a positive tax income for the Treasury.

Reverse the steps taken by the current Government over the last 13 years. Namely,

1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad and let those granted asylum come into Britain, start work and contribute to Society.
2. Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants
3. Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
4. Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog of applications.

You will then reverse the current Government policy of forcing asylum seekers into the hands of people smugglers and risking their lives in the channel. Interestingly, the Government's policy of having 10's of thousands arriving across the channel completely uncontrolled and not processing them, has allowed all sorts of people to get in, something Albanian gangs caught onto quickly, obviously far more competent than our Government :facepalm:

Boat Crossings
(Numbers weren't recorded prior to 2018 as the government thought them inconsequential).
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755

Asylum Backlog
2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000

Because if you actually process them, you don't have to pay for barges, flights to Rwanda, Hostels, etc or any of this other complete bolleaux and those that are approved can start work and pay tax.

Or, alternatively, people can continue to believe this whole ridiculous 'illegal immigrant' narrative from this disgusting inhumane cabal of proven liars and let them continue to royally take the piss out of them and treat them like ridiculously naïve, slavering idiots :shrug:
 
Last edited:


abc

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
1,044
There is a simple question for the Tories to answer (and I'm surprised that Starmer hasn't asked it at PMQs). It is this.

"If Rwanda is a "safe country" why are we granting asylum to people from Rwanda?"

Rwanda is a very safe country but that is not the same as saying it is ‘safe’ for anyone forced to go there (or anywhere else for that matter) against their will and without proper care and integration policies. Our gov don’t give a damn about the latter, and i have no idea what the Rwandan gov has planned but given how poor the country is i suspect very little (and only the most naive believe that the uk payments will go entirely to the refugees). I do know that very few Rwandans have any clue about the whole idea and so it would be wrong to assume that the Rwandan people are supportive.
 




Jim in the West

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 13, 2003
4,570
Way out West
I heard a Tory MP on the radio a couple of days ago trying to defend it.

"The intention is to discourage people from coming by threatening them with Rwanda"
followed by "Rwanda is a perfectly safe place to go".

To which the interviewer asked the rather obvious question "If Rwanda is perfectly safe, why would it act as a deterrent ?"

But apparently there's still a significant percentage who have learnt f*** all from the last 8 years and would still vote for this idiocy :dunce:
The other complete non-sequitur in this argument is that the Rwanda scheme only has capacity for a few hundred people a year. Even after the scheme gets up and running (assuming it does, eventually) there's a very high chance that any asylum-seeker arriving in the UK will NOT be sent to Rwanda. It therefore is VERY unlikely to act as a deterrent.
 


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,882
The other complete non-sequitur in this argument is that the Rwanda scheme only has capacity for a few hundred people a year. Even after the scheme gets up and running (assuming it does, eventually) there's a very high chance that any asylum-seeker arriving in the UK will NOT be sent to Rwanda. It therefore is VERY unlikely to act as a deterrent.

If it wasn't costing so much it would be funnier than one of Baldrick's cunning plans. It is complete and utter incompetence and idiocy from start to finish :shrug:
 


Bob!

Coffee Buyer
Jul 5, 2003
11,140
And there is a very simple solution which has been explained numerous times which would turn these 'costs' into a positive tax income for the Treasury.

Reverse the steps taken by the current Government over the last 13 years. Namely,

1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad and let those granted asylum come into Britain, start work and contribute to Society.
2. Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants
3. Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
4. Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog of applications.

You will then reverse the current Government policy of forcing asylum seekers into the hands of people smugglers and risking their lives in the channel. Interestingly, the Government's policy of having 10's of thousands arriving across the channel completely uncontrolled and not processing them, has allowed all sorts of people to get in, something Albanian gangs caught onto quickly, obviously far more competent than our Government :facepalm:

Boat Crossings
(Numbers weren't recorded prior to 2018 as the government thought them inconsequential).
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755

Asylum Backlog
2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000

Because if you actually process them, you don't have to pay for barges, flights to Rwanda, Hostels, etc or any of this other complete bolleaux and those that are approved can start work and pay tax.

Or, alternatively, people can continue to believe this whole ridiculous 'illegal immigrant' narrative from this disgusting inhumane cabal of proven liars and let them continue to royally tak

You have basically described Labour's plan , from their missions.

Labour will:

Smash the criminal gangs by using counter-terror style tactics – strengthening powers and using the full force of Britain’s intelligence and policing to destroy the evil business model of human trafficking.

Deploy more police and investigators in a Cross-Border Police Unit to go after the smuggler and trafficking gangs who undermine our border security and put lives at risk.

Set up a 1,000 strong Returns Unit to ensure failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be here are removed.

End hotel use for asylum seekers by clearing the asylum backlog with more staff to process claims and return people to safe countries
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
7,028
, only for the public to fall for their hubris and blame woke labour. It beggars belief.

And sensible people are still falling for it.
The positive here is that I don't think the public are falling for it. The Rwanda policy is wildly unpopular. The Tories are 21 points behind in the polls.

People are rejecting their crude racism.

There is a cheerleading mob in the tabloid press and tabloid TV plus a few inconsequential but noisy gammons in favour. The great majority of Britains are repulsed. Which makes me proud of my countrymen and women.
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,219
Faversham
Rwanda is a very safe country but that is not the same as saying it is ‘safe’ for anyone forced to go there (or anywhere else for that matter) against their will and without proper care and integration policies. Our gov don’t give a damn about the latter, and i have no idea what the Rwandan gov has planned but given how poor the country is i suspect very little (and only the most naive believe that the uk payments will go entirely to the refugees). I do know that very few Rwandans have any clue about the whole idea and so it would be wrong to assume that the Rwandan people are supportive.
Why am I thinking Jonathan Swift here?

Perhaps the Rwanda 'government' have a modest proposal to deal with the (inevitably impoverished) arrivals.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,219
Faversham
And there is a very simple solution which has been explained numerous times which would turn these 'costs' into a positive tax income for the Treasury.

Reverse the steps taken by the current Government over the last 13 years. Namely,

1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad and let those granted asylum come into Britain, start work and contribute to Society.
2. Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants
3. Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
4. Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog of applications.

You will then reverse the current Government policy of forcing asylum seekers into the hands of people smugglers and risking their lives in the channel. Interestingly, the Government's policy of having 10's of thousands arriving across the channel completely uncontrolled and not processing them, has allowed all sorts of people to get in, something Albanian gangs caught onto quickly, obviously far more competent than our Government :facepalm:

Boat Crossings
(Numbers weren't recorded prior to 2018 as the government thought them inconsequential).
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755

Asylum Backlog
2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000

Because if you actually process them, you don't have to pay for barges, flights to Rwanda, Hostels, etc or any of this other complete bolleaux and those that are approved can start work and pay tax.

Or, alternatively, people can continue to believe this whole ridiculous 'illegal immigrant' narrative from this disgusting inhumane cabal of proven liars and let them continue to royally take the piss out of them and treat them like ridiculously naïve, slavering idiots :shrug:
Eloquent :bowdown:
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here