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

Register Log in

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



JBizzle

JBizzle

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2010
5,833
Seaford
rippleman said:
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.
Click to expand...
He has, a couple of times. As usual the answer is "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, What have YOU done to STOP the BOATS?!" and every other fluff and nonsense they chuck out.

Has Sunak, Johnson or Truss ever actually answered the question that's being asked in PMQs?

"Why are we spending £400m on this Rwanda nonsense, when we have bigger problems to solve?"
"Yeah? YEAH? Well YOU were in CORBYN'S shadow cabinet? What do you have to say about THAT?" Sit's down smugly
 




R

rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,578
abc said:
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.
Click to expand...
How can it be "very safe" if we are granting asylum to people fleeing Rwanda?

Did you read this article posted earlier in the thread by Pevenseagull?

www.bbc.co.uk

Kizito Mihigo: The Rwandan gospel singer who died in a police cell

Rwandan genocide survivor Kizito Mihigo, hailed as a national talent, was later accused of treason.
www.bbc.co.uk

Does it sound like a "very safe" country to you?

Try this from Rainbow Migration

www.rainbowmigration.org.uk

Rwanda is not safe for LGBTQI+ people - Rainbow Migration

Reports suggest that this government is proposing to send LGBTQI+ people who come to the UK seeking safety from persecution to Rwanda.
www.rainbowmigration.org.uk www.rainbowmigration.org.uk

So we have someone arrive in the UK seeking asylum as they are being persecuted for being gay. So we stick them on a plane to Rwanda where they will be persecuted for being gay. It's still not sounding like a "very safe" country is it?

We granted asylum to 15 Rwandans last year.

www.bloomberg.com

UK Grants Asylum to 15 Rwandans Despite ‘Safe Country’ Claims

The UK granted asylum applications to 15 Rwandans last year — despite insisting the African nation is a “safe country” to which it can deport refugees.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

If Rwanda is your vision of a "safe country", I really don't know how you would try to define an "unsafe" one.
 


R

rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,578
JBizzle said:
He has, a couple of times. As usual the answer is "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, What have YOU done to STOP the BOATS?!" and every other fluff and nonsense they chuck out.

Has Sunak, Johnson or Truss ever actually answered the question that's being asked in PMQs?

"Why are we spending £400m on this Rwanda nonsense, when we have bigger problems to solve?"
"Yeah? YEAH? Well YOU were in CORBYN'S shadow cabinet? What do you have to say about THAT?" Sit's down smugly
Click to expand...
No. You make a good point. I was pondering last night whether the current pathetic childish exchanges between Sunak and Starmer are because we have such a weak Speaker that has lost a lot of respect recently. But it isn't. It's always been this way although perhaps not to the extent it is with these two clowns.

What if the Prime Minister was compelled to ANSWER the questions at Prime Ministers Questions and if he doesn't, the Speaker has the power to hold the PM "in contempt of Parliament" and suspend him from the House. Could well put an end to the childishness and get some proper politics done.
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
7,026
rippleman said:
No. You make a good point. I was pondering last night whether the current pathetic childish exchanges between Sunak and Starmer are because we have such a weak Speaker that has lost a lot of respect recently. But it isn't. It's always been this way although perhaps not to the extent it is with these two clowns.

What if the Prime Minister was compelled to ANSWER the questions at Prime Ministers Questions and if he doesn't, the Speaker has the power to hold the PM "in contempt of Parliament" and suspend him from the House. Could well put an end to the childishness and get some proper politics done.
Click to expand...
A great idea.

And the leader of the opposition has to ask the question, not launch into a mini speech.

PMQ's should be about holding the government and PM to account
 






A

abc

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
1,044
rippleman said:
How can it be "very safe" if we are granting asylum to people fleeing Rwanda?

Did you read this article posted earlier in the thread by Pevenseagull?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-af...uk/news/rwanda-is-not-safe-for-lgbtqi-people/

So we have someone arrive in the UK seeking asylum as they are being persecuted for being gay. So we stick them on a plane to Rwanda where they will be persecuted for being gay. It's still not sounding like a "very safe" country is it?

We granted asylum to 15 Rwandans last year.

www.bloomberg.com

UK Grants Asylum to 15 Rwandans Despite ‘Safe Country’ Claims

The UK granted asylum applications to 15 Rwandans last year — despite insisting the African nation is a “safe country” to which it can deport refugees.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

If Rwanda is your vision of a "safe country", I really don't know how you would try to define an "unsafe" one.
Click to expand...

You are right. My experience of Rwanda is that it’s a very safe country in terms of what we might normally call safe in terms of crime, walking down the street at night, theft etc. Also it’s a relative judgment given that only 30 years ago 1 million people died in the genocide. It is quite extraordinary how the Rwandan people have come together and created real peace and community so quickly from such horrors.
But if just one Rwandan feels unsafe and needs to seek asylum here because of their sexuality then clearly it is not safe for everyone and your original point is well made and i accept it without argument.
I hate everything about this gov’s approach to asylum seekers and Rwanda and a part of that is the way that Rwanda and the wonderful, friendly, almost entirely poor land based people end up being denigrated as a result. They know little about the machinations and prejudices of our and their leaders and maybe I get a bit defensive on their behalf. 😔
 
Last edited:


A

abc

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
1,044
Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Why am I thinking Jonathan Swift here?

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

I think even Swift would have baulked at putting something as absurd and unbelievable as our gov’s Rwandan policy in one of his books. I have tried to clarify what i meant by ‘safe’ in my reply to Rippleman’s post. He is right of course that one of many flaws in the policy is that we accept asylum seekers from Rwanda (and they need to seek it). The whole thing is just wrong, wrong,wrong.
 


Not Andy Naylor

Not Andy Naylor

Well-known member
Dec 12, 2007
8,798
Seven Dials
If Rwanda is a safe country, why is sending people there supposed to be such a deterrent?
 






Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,204
Faversham
abc said:
I think even Swift would have baulked at putting something as absurd and unbelievable as our gov’s Rwandan policy in one of his books. I have tried to clarify what i meant by ‘safe’ in my reply to Rippleman’s post. He is right of course that one of many flaws in the policy is that we accept asylum seekers from Rwanda (and they need to seek it). The whole thing is just wrong, wrong,wrong.
Click to expand...
As wrong as a man in white vest and underpants with a bag of sweets, leering at schoolchildren.
 


The Clamp

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,541
West is BEST
Kinky Gerbil said:
Well the argument would be they are safe at the first port of call.

As I said, call their bluff, pass the bill and watch it fail
Click to expand...
I see your point about calling their bluff and part of me agrees.

However, we cannot allow the Tory’s to ride roughshod over our laws. The law must be upheld.
 




The Clamp

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,541
West is BEST
I haven’t seen many Tory MP’s Wintering with their families in Rwanda of late.
 










BBassic

BBassic

I changed this.
Jul 28, 2011
12,337
rippleman said:
No. You make a good point. I was pondering last night whether the current pathetic childish exchanges between Sunak and Starmer are because we have such a weak Speaker that has lost a lot of respect recently. But it isn't. It's always been this way although perhaps not to the extent it is with these two clowns.

What if the Prime Minister was compelled to ANSWER the questions at Prime Ministers Questions and if he doesn't, the Speaker has the power to hold the PM "in contempt of Parliament" and suspend him from the House. Could well put an end to the childishness and get some proper politics done.
Click to expand...
If I were opposition leader I just wouldn't go.

I'd instead spend that time every week in my constituency office talking to real people about their actual problems. Let Sunak and his malcontent band of braying sociopaths guffaw their way through another matinee of PMQs: The Panto
 








chickens

chickens

Intending to survive this time of asset strippers
Oct 12, 2022
1,863
Ethelwulf said:
Down to their lowest polling ever at 19 per cent !!!!!
Click to expand...

Sadly, the polling never precisely matches what happens at an election, but over my lifetime it’s usually been the centre-left vote that has been split between Labour/Lib Dems/Greens.

The Conservatives successfully saw off any threat from UKIP post referendum result by lurching right and expelling most of their centre-right members. However, for the first time at an election, the rightward vote is likely to split between the Conservatives and Reform. This could genuinely hurt them in previously safe seats, and is what Labour has always had to contend with.

I have learnt not to stay up for election results, as not much starts happening until 3am, but I may set the alarm for 5am and have an early breakfast in front of the telly.
 


T

TomandJerry

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2013
11,495
chickens said:
Sadly, the polling never precisely matches what happens at an election, but over my lifetime it’s usually been the centre-left vote that has been split between Labour/Lib Dems/Greens.

The Conservatives successfully saw off any threat from UKIP post referendum result by lurching right and expelling most of their centre-right members. However, for the first time at an election, the rightward vote is likely to split between the Conservatives and Reform. This could genuinely hurt them in previously safe seats, and is what Labour has always had to contend with.

I have learnt not to stay up for election results, as not much starts happening until 3am, but I may set the alarm for 5am and have an early breakfast in front of the telly.
Click to expand...
The polling got the Brexit vote spectacularly wrong...

I'm waiting to see if Reform back down just before the GE also.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here