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

[Bodian]

Aside from the obvious point about priorities, the fact that in 2023 someone can't vote remotely is nuts

By What's App maybe?

Oh - wait, there would be no record of who voted for what in a year's time.....

 

[KZNSeagull]

Reading some of the comments I saw this tweet from Pippa Crerar, seems its because its a three-line whip; what an absolute pathetic state of affairs.

Yup. Pairing is the name of the voting mechanism where someone drops out so if that is cancelled then yes, he would be coming back for the vote. Oh and I agree, it is pathetic.

 

[CHAPPERS]

A reader asks:

The government is recalling a minister from the climate summit. Why can’t they ask the opposition for a pairing? Given the importance of Cop28 to the UK, Labour might have agreed to this ... or is this more performative from the Conservatives?

The government and opposition do agree to pair MPs, and I’m sure they have done that today. But if the opposition have only got, say, 14 MPs who can’t make the vote because they are ill/away or whatever, that is all they will offer the government – even if the government wants more pairs. And the government normally has more people away because there 100-odd MPs who are in government and might be away on government business.

Rwanda bill ‘pushing at edge of the envelope’ but ‘within framework of international law’ says home secretary – UK politics live

James Cleverly says deportation bill contains ‘novel measures’ as MPs debate it

www.theguardian.com

 

[Eric the meek]

'More home secretaries have been sent to Rwanda than asylum seekers - "it's about £100 million per trip" - Yvette Cooper, in the Commons an hour ago.

 

[Audax]

Thought so, so why is he flying home for the vote, if he is?

I would guess they're worried that they actually need as many "Yes" votes as they can get. Depends on how many of the rebels abstain vs vote against.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Pairing has been 'abused' in the past.

Commons leader says sorry to Jo Swinson for pairing pact 'error'

Lib Dem, who has three-week-old baby, furious after Tory takes part in crucial Brexit vote

www.theguardian.com

Conservative MP claims pregnant Labour MP delaying birth for Brexit vote to 'make a point'

'I think irrespective of pairing, I think she wants to make a point that she is doing this for her constituents'

www.independent.co.uk

 

[TomandJerry]

 

[TomandJerry]

Back in the Commons Sir Bill Cash, who led the European Research Group’s “star chamber” panel of legal experts who published a report on the Rwanda bill, is speaking now.

He says if parliament passes a law, the courts should apply it, whether it breaks international law or not.

He praises Robert Jenrick for his speech. And he says that he thinks the bill can be improved.

 

[pb21]

Out of interest, does anyone know how this scheme came to fruition, to the extent it is? Specifically how Rwanda, rather than any other country, came to be the third country we would be working with?

 

[nicko31]

I think this is the view now from most of the public

Even if successful At best its a one for one asylum swap for £1m a pop. At worse sending desperate people to a dictatorship with an appalling human rights record and no deterrent.

Sadly the UK is not alone, other populist government are trying bad shit too.

 

[nicko31]

Out of interest, does anyone know how this scheme came to fruition, to the extent it is? Specifically how Rwanda, rather than any other country, came to be the third country we would be working with?

Seems the Tories whip went on a gorilla trek there many years so and thought it was nice

 

[rippleman]

I think it is important to remember that the arrangement with Rwanda (if approved, gets through all the legal challenges etc) means that we could potentially send up to 100 asylum seekers to Rwanda. And we would be committed to taking 100 Rwandan refugees / asylum seekers. That's as close to net zero as you can get.

Hundreds of millions of pounds spent to have absolutely no impact whatsoever on immigration numbers.

Remind me again why slimey Sunak thinks this is a good idea.

 

[nicko31]

I think it is important to remember that the arrangement with Rwanda (if approved, gets through all the legal challenges etc) means that we could potentially send up to 100 asylum seekers to Rwanda. And we would be committed to taking 100 Rwandan refugees / asylum seekers. That's as close to net zero as you can get.

Hundreds of millions of pounds spent to have absolutely no impact whatsoever on immigration numbers.

Remind me again why slimey Sunak thinks this is a good idea.

Finally Tory commitment to net zero!!!!

 

[pb21]

Seems the Tories whip went on a gorilla trek there many years so and thought it was nice

Its a bit strange when you think about it.

Presumably, a couple of years ago someone in Government, or working for Government, thought they should seriously look into and develop this scheme, but that would have been before any third country was identified, so there must've been some kind of tendering process undertaken (given this is public money being spent) to establish the best option.

How do you go about tendering for the removal of people from one country to another, bring it up at the UN?! Having said that this is the Tory party, so backhanders and mates of old mates, may very well have been utilised.

I suppose Rwanda could have offered this to the UK first, but that seems unlikely.

 

[Pevenseagull]

That'll be a Knighthood for Lee Anderson then.

 

[Berty23]

I think it is important to remember that the arrangement with Rwanda (if approved, gets through all the legal challenges etc) means that we could potentially send up to 100 asylum seekers to Rwanda. And we would be committed to taking 100 Rwandan refugees / asylum seekers. That's as close to net zero as you can get.

Hundreds of millions of pounds spent to have absolutely no impact whatsoever on immigration numbers.

Remind me again why slimey Sunak thinks this is a good idea.

People argue it is a deterrent so 100 will stop people coming. What people forget is that almost that many die every year in the boats so if that’s not a deterrent then is Rwanda?

 

[Jim in the West]

People argue it is a deterrent so 100 will stop people coming. What people forget is that almost that many die every year in the boats so if that’s not a deterrent then is Rwanda?

There was never any evidence that the Rwanda policy would act as a deterrent. People willing to risk crossing the Channel in a small boat are DESPERATE. They have also faced many, many huge challenges in getting to northern France in the first place. The knowledge that you may have an approximately 0.25% chance of being sent to Rwanda is hardly a deterrent.

 

[Eric the meek]

Out of interest, does anyone know how this scheme came to fruition, to the extent it is? Specifically how Rwanda, rather than any other country, came to be the third country we would be working with?

I believe the initial idea came from Priti Patel, either when she was Home Secretary, or before she was appointed.

Her previous idea was to create a wave machine in the channel to act as a deterrent to asylum seekers. The fact that it would put them in greater danger of capsizing was evidently not seen by Priti as sufficient reason to abandon the idea. Thankfully, this idea was rejected, I think by the cabinet. But the Rwanda solution was adopted instead.

You may recall that Priti's parents came from Uganda, next door to Rwanda. I don't know if Uganda was in the frame first, or Rwanda was her first choice.

 

[beorhthelm]

Its a bit strange when you think about it.

Presumably, a couple of years ago someone in Government, or working for Government, thought they should seriously look into and develop this scheme, but that would have been before any third country was identified, so there must've been some kind of tendering process undertaken (given this is public money being spent) to establish the best option.

How do you go about tendering for the removal of people from one country to another, bring it up at the UN?! Having said that this is the Tory party, so backhanders and mates of old mates, may very well have been utilised.

I suppose Rwanda could have offered this to the UK first, but that seems unlikely.

i wondered how they ended up at Rwanda, not an obvious choice, apparently Israel and Denmark had some arrangment with them for similar parking some migrants.

when Priti Patel first mooted the policy here, i think Ascension Island or some other colonial outpost was in the frame.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I believe the initial idea came from Priti Patel, either when she was Home Secretary, or before she was appointed.

Her previous idea was to create a wave machine in the channel to act as a deterrent to asylum seekers. The fact that it would put them in greater danger of capsizing was evidently not seen by Priti as sufficient reason to abandon the idea. Thankfully, this idea was rejected, I think by the cabinet. But the Rwanda solution was adopted instead.

You may recall that Priti's parents came from Uganda, next door to Rwanda. I don't know if Uganda was in the frame first, or Rwanda was her first choice.

Patel's first idea was for the Royal Navy to sink them, but the Admiralty told her they had no intention of breaking International Maritime Law.