"When I said that I couldn't be the ethics advisor to someone completely lacking ethics, I was really understating the case". Have fun with another 11.5 months (minimum!) of Boris, Conservative Party.
My guess is he’ll be gone after the upcoming by-election defeats. He didn’t even bother showing up to meet the Northern Research Group Tories yesterday, instead choosing a photo-op with Zelezhniy in Kyiv. Another bit of Johnson unpleasantness just breaking:
I don't think that Boris is the "leave with the last shred of your dignity intact" sort. If he was, he'd have resigned already. He'll need to be dragged out of 10 Downing by his heels, and unless the rebels go thermonuclear by backing a non-confidence vote in the government as a whole, there aren't a lot of options at the moment.
Interesting to read that the man being put forward, by the Tories, for the Wakefield seat is a practiced liar, putting out stories that the Labour candidate has been parachuted into Wakefield, is an outsider and knows nothing about Wakefield’s needs. The reality is that the Labour guy has campaigned in Wakefield for 2 decades and has lived there for 10 years. Also interesting to see how he has compared the wrongdoing of his predecessor with the actions of Harold Shipman. His claim appears to be that the country didn’t stop supporting GPs because of the actions of one man, and so the country shouldn’t stop supporting the Tory party based on the actions of one man. His argument falls apart when you look at the record of law breaking, corruption and abuse of power that is rife in the Tory party.
On the topic of Rwanda and asylum seekers, I am getting fed up with the constant bullshit being put out that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is designed to deter asylum seekers from putting their lives at risk by coming across the channel in boats. The whole purpose of the Rwanda deal is to appeal to the basest instincts of those members of society who, for whatever reason, just don’t want any immigrants of colour in this country. The Tory party NEED the asylum seekers to continue to cross the channel because they use it to evoke fear in people that “Johnny Foreigner” is coming to take our jobs and women and are the cause of so many problems in the country, (overcrowded schools, NHS waiting lists, housing etc) which gets them votes at the ballot box. Despite the Tory claims that they want to stop people trafficking gangs they are complicit. They are empowering the gangs for political gain and any death is being leapt on to further their “argument” for stopping the gangs. If the Tory party TRULY wanted to stop the boat crossings they would open up legal routes for asylum seekers to apply for asylum, NOT make it impossible for them to do so. Ukrainians fleeing the war zone, in their own country, can legally and remotely apply for asylum on-line, yet ALL other asylum seekers cannot apply for asylum until they have set foot on British soil, hence the reason for risking their lives in poorly maintained boats. People who use the argument that asylum seekers should stop in the first safe country they reach don’t seem to be applying that same thought process to Ukrainian asylum seekers. If it can be done for a country that is primarily white, then why not for countries where the skin colours are of a darker hue?
This post is accurately underscores the problem as to how it actually is. I find the Rwanda scenario reprehensible but I am sure you will find that this policy will go down well with the more typical Tory "White Van Man" kind of voter than the toffs outlined in the skit above. It is shocking that this govenrment seems to be able to think the impossible and impliment the kind of policies which could only have appeared in a black comedy a matter of years ago. I am surprised that things had got as far as booking airline flights. I think it is obvious where the Rwanda situation will end up. The media will be all over this as soon as a refugee who has been sent there dies. Someone with some sort of medical condition will end up being deported to Africa and will sadly not get the medical attention they deserve. I will also be interested just how soon it will be reported too that people traffickers have targetted the hostels where the aslyum seakers are being held. I would give it a year before the firsrt person sent to Rwanda is found back in the UK. I am not convinvced that providing legal avenues for refugees is the answer. This is just a sticking plaster. The solution will be to ensure that the world is made more stable, less arms are sold to developing countries, aid is more accurately targetted and that the developed world cuts down on carbon omissions so that more of the world does not become too hot to inhabit, I woud suggest that this is unlikely to ever happen and I genuinely feel that immigration is perhaps one issue we will be unable to fit. At the mment this is just a trickle - wait until sub-Saharan Africa becomes too hot for a viable agricultural system and then immigration will be serious.
It is intriguing to me that both the posters above seem to very much imply that it is only men that have this right wing anti immigrant feeling “steal our jobs and women” “Tory white van man” Both Brexit and this 80+ seat tory majority could not have been achieved without substantial support from women It is the same in America where left leaning people are completely unable to accept how many women voted for trump and still vote for republicans (even anti abortion ones). And on a different sub group - why the talk about the “Latino voters” is also becoming a problem as they are very very different throughout the US. Or why the talk on oppression of Black people in the U.K. seems to group all black people together even though those of black African descent have better educational outcomes than of white British (especially working class) descent Things are not that simple. And I will not I am only drawing implications from the posts above - not saying they actually think this. But it is time we accept the reality that this kind of thing can’t be pigeon holed into a small group of people that we can easily (and, notably, safely) demonise My friends stopped going to a restaurant in town because of how the (Indian) owner was outspokenly pro Brexit due to being vocally anti-immigrant. I know it is one anecdote but the result of the votes over the last 6 years suggest their are far far more. I mean, many senior members of the cabinet wouldn’t even be citizens of this country if the rules they currently want were in place immediately post WW2 - including Johnson, Sunak, Patel, Javid and Raab. Almost all the top offices of state
These laws must now be enacted retrospectively and applied to lying bastards and charlatans who wouldn't be trusted with the change in your pocket. Only in this way can our country be saved from this corrupt bunch of fascists posing as Tories.
I think someone posted about the story on the left being withdrawn from the Times, but didn’t see anything about what it was replaced with. It’s hard to believe that some people (not aimed at anyone on here) still argue that the media doesn’t influence popular opinion to a great extent.
Course it does. That’s unarguable. It was Boris that got that story spiked by the way. We sink yet deeper…
