Absolutely useless Suella Braverman fails to explain how theoretical asylum seeker could get to UK safely and legally. The home secretary was being questioned by MPs on immigration but could not say how asylum seekers could enter the UK legally, did not know how many judicial reviews have been launched against the Manston migrant centre and did not know if migrants could be forced to go to Rwanda. By Alix Culbertson, Political reporter @alixculbertson Wednesday 23rd November 2022 14:18, https://news.sky.com/story/amp/suel...ers-can-get-to-uk-safely-and-legally-12753780
Some things I know nowt about. So here’s one of them . All my life I’ve been aware that there are people from all sorts of countries around the world living and working here . So , if there’s no legal way in and they didn’t for the last 60 years come in dinghy’s- how did they come , were allowed ? I’m sure the answer is simple , but evades me !
Its being reported that Michelle Mone a Tory Peer, had received a £29m backhander from a PPE firm, for securing them a big contact.
There were £14bn worth of PPE contracts given out via the VIP lane. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It would clearly be criminal though and people should serve jail time if found guilty.
It's two completely different things that are often confused or conflated gelders. There has always been a controlled and manageable immigration system to meet the skills required by the UK, at the moment it's a points based system. What that article is about is the refugee convention, which we signed up to, and is meant to allow people safe passage to apply for asylum in any country they choose. Over the past few years our system has collapsed and unless a person is from Syria, Afghanistan or Ukraine there is no legal or safe route into the UK to apply for asylum.
I think the fast track was necessary and the right thing. Abuse of that deserves punishment like you say. I am not so surpised some of the worthwhile schemes we put in place, like this one, and furlough, have been abused. There was a need to rush these things. People who have taken advantage should be made to pay, and like you say criminal charges where appropriate. Tony Blair claimed furlough for some of his team, despite being worth £60m. Victoria Beckham tried it and changed her mind because of backlash. These people have zero moral compas I am afraid and are so used to money just flowing their way they have no stop valve when it would be appropriate.
There's a vast difference between claiming what is being offered to you (despite not needing it) and fraud. I'm not defending any of those people but the situations are not remotely comparable. The fast track lane may have been necessary but the government ignored legitimate companies who were offering to supply PPE in favour of contracts such as this one and Ayanda capital who were completely ill equipped to handle the contract. It wasn't done out of the necessity for speed but out of opportunity to make friends rich.
I am not comparing the two. Making the point that I think fasttrack and Furlough were perfectly senisble things to do, but were abused. People commiting criminal offences need to be held to account absolutely and I hope they are. I suspect there are many more examples like this to come out, sadly, and it is the rich and powerful that will have benefited as always.
Another day, another U--turn ... Sunak backs down in battle with Bank of England over financial regulation. The Treasury today announced that the new power, originally proposed by Sunak when he was chancellor, would be dropped. https://www.ft.com/content/694797d1-dee8-4e8d-a788-b3ada405a550
That may or may not be true but that's irrelevant. Sunak is the PM so his actions affect us directly and reflect on his 'leadership'. Your totally predictable 'tit for tat' deflections don't work and show that you can't argue a point. Whatever else is happening the fact remains that Sunak has U-turned again.
I was reading recently that there is hardly anything left from Starmers run for leadership left not u-turned. One journalist called it the most dishonest leadership campaign ever. I was also reading the same of the conservative manifesto. Similar with Sunak's leadership bid, which failed, where he has rowed back on some things. He is getting lambasted for it in some media quarters. The problem, in my opinion, is we have a sorry media in this country who peddle juvenile stuff when it comes to politics. If Starmer or the conservatives hadnt changed direction in the last 3 years their policies would look utterly ridiculous. The political landscape is entirely different. I am no sympathist for Starmer or the government, both are hopeless in my opinion, but at least they are reacting and not blindly sticking to 3 year old plans. The voting public, to an extent, are led by what the media portray. We all know they eventually take a side, some never change sides. I find it odd that is the case, and frankly dangerous. I wait with interest to see what role News UK and Rebekah Brooks plays over the next 12 months or so...
The whole conversation around 'U-Turns' is ludicrous. Opinions and approaches should change depending upon circumstances and new information becoming available without partisan idiots treating it like some kind of win. Imagine applying the rules of politics to real life. You have to decide everything based on the first ten seconds, stick to it no matter what and if you change your mind you're U-Turning. If you stick to your snap decision and it turns out to be wrong everyone screams at you to resign.
