• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
Politics has been gamified and people are willing to accept the problems as long as they're getting one over the opposition somehow. Brexit is a good example of potentially suffering from loads of issues, but accepting them because you 'really showed it to the remoaners'.

Likewise, it's okay to tolerate Boris taking the country down the toilet because, well, at least it keeps Labour out. Rather than own up to the issues with your leader, and how it may destroy your party and make you unelectable for decades, just attack, attack, attack.

The USA has arguably got it worse, but we're certainly trying hard to catch up.

However when the last PM is critical of the Rwanda policy (when they came up with the hostel environment policy, which was questionable) then you know things aren't good:

Former prime minister and ‘hostile environment’ architect warns scheme could lead to increased trafficking of women and children

Theresa May has questioned the “legality, practicality and efficacy” of ministers’ plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda amid demands from MPs that the government should disclose the cost of the scheme.

The former prime minister, who devised the “hostile environment” policy, warned on Tuesday that the plan to fly those who arrive by unauthorised means to the African country could lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children.

May made the claim as Priti Patel, the home secretary, came under repeated demands in the Commons to explain how much the scheme, announced last week while parliament was in recess, would cost. The UK government has said it will pay an initial £120m to the Rwandan government, but will have to pay additional costs for housing, food and travel.

May, who has been blamed in part for the Windrush scandal while home secretary, questioned whether the policy was within the law. “I do not support the removal to Rwanda policy on the grounds of legality, practicality and efficacy,” she said. The former Conservative party leader asked whether reports were correct in claiming that families would not be broken up by the government as it sought to send people to Rwanda. “Where is her evidence that this will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children?” May said. Patel did not clarify whether women and children would be sent to Rwanda, but insisted the policy was legal and was needed to tackle smuggling gangs who “effectively exploit various loopholes in our existing laws”.

In response to earlier criticism of the proposal from Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the former archbishop Rowan Williams, Boris Johnson reportedly criticised “senior members of the clergy” during a meeting of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs on Tuesday evening. The prime minister said they “had been less vociferous in their condemnation on Easter Sunday of Putin than they were on our policy of illegal immigrants”, according to PA Media.

Andrew Mitchell, the former Tory international development secretary, was one of a series of backbenchers who joined opposition MPs in expressing concerns at the policy, saying it “will simply not work”.

Patel refused to directly answer MPs’ questions on whether there was a cap on the cost of each person forcibly deported, on top of the £120m economic deal with Rwanda.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, told MPs that the government was looking for help from Rwanda because Home Office decision-making had “totally collapsed”. “On [Patel’s] watch, the Home Office are only taking 14,000 initial asylum decisions a year. That is half what they were doing five years ago. “So, the costs of the UK taxpayer have soared by hundreds of millions of pounds because she isn’t capable of taking the basic asylum decisions. And because she’s not capable of taking those decisions, she is trying to pay Rwanda to take those decisions instead,” she said.

The Scottish National party’s home affairs spokesperson, Stuart McDonald, said Patel’s policy would not hurt smugglers but would harm people who had fled persecution. “Her government has completely failed to stop abuses in UK detention centres, never mind centres that are 5,000 miles away. “In short, this disastrous policy has nothing to do with the global migration crisis, it is everything to do with distracting from the PM’s political crises,” he told MPs.

Patel said the final comment was “absolutely unacceptable” and accused opposition MPs of “playing party political games”. She urged the House of Lords, which has rejected the nationality and borders bill twice, to accept it. “Once again urge the ‘other place’ to follow this elected House in backing the bill,” she said.

Labour’s Dame Diana Johnson, who chairs the home affairs select committee, asked: “Who would actually be eligible to be sent to Rwanda? Is it going to be single young men, is it going to be women and children?” Patel replied: “Everyone considered for relocation will be screened, interviewed and have the right access to legal advice and services.” Patel told the Commons that a reported objection from Matthew Rycroft, her permanent secretary, was not evidence that he opposed her plans. “He stated, in his role as accounting officer, that the policy is regular, proper and feasible, but that there is not currently sufficient evidence to demonstrate value for money,” she claimed. In an exchange of letters with Patel, Rycroft wrote: “I do not believe sufficient evidence can be obtained to demonstrate that the policy will have a deterrent effect significant enough to make the policy value for money.” Last year, more than 28,000 migrants and refugees made the crossing from mainland Europe to Britain, a fraction of the number arriving in other European countries.


A few things to pick up on:

Dealing with 14,000 cases a year when there's double that means that the costs of housing Asylum seekers must be growing, is also likely to mean that within a few years there'll come a point where you may as well claim asylum as you're likely to end up staying here at zero cost for quite a long time. If that's the case then chances are it'll mean more people coming here using the people smugglers.

Why should senior church leaders be more critical of Putin than of our government when our government are doing things which aren't ethical. You don't need to be overly smart to know that Putin is doing bad things. However when politicians in this country so something with questionable ethics then yes that should expect to be questioned by the leadership of the church in this country.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

After Rees-Mogg tweeted, ‘Christ is risen, Alleluia. He is risen indeed, Alleluia, Alleluia.‘ a couple of days ago Jack Monroe replied with Titus 1:16. (‘They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.’ (It is in her tweet: I didn’t even know there was a book of Titus.))

Titus comes just after 2 Timothy, in which it says:

But mark this: there will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone. 2 Timothy 3:1‭-‬9 NIVUK https://bible.com/bible/113/2ti.3.1-9.NIVUK

I don't know how the current crop of Tory Ministers are towards their parents, however most of the rest of the criticism in that passage could be leveled at them.

Hopefully their folly is evident to enough that they'll lose power.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
3,061
With Ress-Mogg he seem to be the type of person that has been brought up thinking he is always right and better than anyone else, so how dare anyone question him.
Sorry Moggy being right is something of a rare occasion for you and as for being better than anyone, I have yet to find many people who are worse than you.

Also interesting that it only seems to be the Express that is sanding up for Boris with the Mail not evene mentioning it on the front page, it appears the Mail might have lessening support for Johnson but know the Tories are their main readers so thoughtbetter just to have other stories on the front page.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,118
Location
Wilmslow
The reports that the Conservative vote for Thursday's debate will be whipped is interesting, it implies to me that otherwise an embarrassingly large number of Tory MPs would either vote against or (more probably) abstain. I think in the longer run it will seem bad, though, and would be better as a free vote - but at the moment Boris and his entourage isn't thinking long-term.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
The reports that the Conservative vote for Thursday's debate will be whipped is interesting, it implies to me that otherwise an embarrassingly large number of Tory MPs would either vote against or (more probably) abstain. I think in the longer run it will seem bad, though, and would be better as a free vote - but at the moment Boris and his entourage isn't thinking long-term.

A whipped vote so that there's no enquiry into if the PM mislead parliament.

Can someone explain how this isn't an acceptance that Boris did mislead parliament and doesn't want this coming out?

As in my head of he had nothing to hide then he should be saying "whilst this would be a waste of resources, if parliament decides that it's required I'll accept it". As then when it finds that he hasn't be could just it to beat them with at the next election.

Of course of he's scared that it'll find that he mislead parliament then the current route is the most likely that would be taken by trying to hold on to power at all cost.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,439
The reports that the Conservative vote for Thursday's debate will be whipped is interesting, it implies to me that otherwise an embarrassingly large number of Tory MPs would either vote against or (more probably) abstain. I think in the longer run it will seem bad, though, and would be better as a free vote - but at the moment Boris and his entourage isn't thinking long-term.

We must remember how well this worked out in the end with the Patterson debacle.

Boris + team are hoping that the problem will go away if they can just ignore the misleading Parliament bit, but we've also been told that there are more fines to come; that at least two of the events being still investigated were attended by Boris - and both of them are said to be more serious than the cake ambush; and that the trickles of other events have restarted now that he's trying to get away with the first of the fines. And now, with so much of his former senior non-political team having been sacked or got rid of to save big dog, it's starting to feel like the start of the year again where every denial was quickly followed by an even more damaging leak.

At the moment, I think many people can see Boris' argument that being presented with a birthday cake just prior to a meeting, while now deemed to have been illegal, could be seen at the time to not to have been. The other events, which he was allegedly involved in organising, allegedly making speeches at leaving do's, and present at the party where aides were sent to an off licence with a suitcase - probably not so much. I also don't think his speech to the party yesterday where he complained about the BBC & the church reporting on him while Putin's being nasty will go down well. I don't think we really want our PM to be the sort of person who thinks that just because a Russian dictator is fighting an unprovoked war, he should be allowed to get away with breaking the law without question.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
The Johnson gang aren't Tories. We have to stop calling them that. They are a Vote Leave/UKIP/English Nationalist/Britain First mush who have slithered into a Tory skin suit. The Conservative Party and all that it stood for is dead.

That does seem to be the case in my view. Don't get me wrong, there are still moderate Tory backbench MPs, most of whom are calling for Johnson's resignation. But they are not driving government policy.

And while I have never supported the Tories, someone like John Major is nowadays IMO the voice of reason - as well as the likes of Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke. What Major saw in the reactionary right-winger Currie is a bit hard to fathom, as they seem to be almost polar opposites within the Tory party.
 
Last edited:

Acfb

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
616
Th
That does seem to be the case in my view. Don't get me wrong, there are still moderate Tory backbench MPs, most of whom are calling for Johnson's resignation. But they are not driving government policy.

And while I have never supported the Tories, someone like John Major is nowadays IMO the voice of reason - as well as the likes of Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke. What Major saw in the reactionary right-winger Currie is a bit hard to fathom, as they seem to be almost polar opposites within the Tory party.

I think Edwina Currie is really just a predictable Tory party hack TBH. I was happy she was soundly defeated in Whaley Bridge last year and did not get on to Derbyshire County Council. I am pretty sure she is representative of the average Tory party member though.

In my view a lot of establishment Tory politicians/commentators are the worst though nowadays particularly those who wrote for the Times etc and try and mask their 'respectable' middle class racism etc.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Interesting re: local elections, my Mum is a life long Tory but loathes the current party especially the likes of Priti Awful, she's only voting for the Tory candidate because she likes the candidate, if it was a vote just for the party she wouldn't vote anymore for them.

I do not get why Patel seems to be able to do anything without getting sacked.

That is one thing I really don't like about the current government - the unwillingness to take action against members of the inner circle. Raab is another one, he can do what he likes without action. The "Britannia Unchained" lot. I bet if a lot of the red-wall Brexiters actually realised what was said against British workers in that pamphlet by Patel, Raab, Truss, Kwarteng and some other guy I've not heard of, they would soon drop their support. Hard-right socially and economically, that lot.

Much as I dislike Hancock, at least he left - and IMO he likely left because he was not part of the hard-Brexiter hard-right inner circle and therefore expendable and not subject to special protection. Though I cannot prove this, I suspect if a "Britannia Unchained" minister had broken lockdown in the same way, while at the same time preaching how necessary long and harsh lockdowns were, nothing would happen.
 
Last edited:

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,118
Location
Wilmslow
That does seem to be the case in my view. Don't get me wrong, there are still moderate Tory backbench MPs, most of whom are calling for Johnson's resignation. But they are not driving government policy.

And while I have never supported the Tories, someone like John Major is nowadays IMO the voice of reason - as well as the likes of Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke. What Major saw in the reactionary right-winger Currie is a bit hard to fathom, as they seem to be almost polar opposites within the Tory party.
They are the Blue Anarchist party in my book; I was at university with William Hague, went to see Michael Heseltine, supported John Major, etc. They have moved more than I have since 1980.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
However when the last PM is critical of the Rwanda policy (when they came up with the hostel environment policy, which was questionable) then you know things aren't good:




A few things to pick up on:

Dealing with 14,000 cases a year when there's double that means that the costs of housing Asylum seekers must be growing, is also likely to mean that within a few years there'll come a point where you may as well claim asylum as you're likely to end up staying here at zero cost for quite a long time. If that's the case then chances are it'll mean more people coming here using the people smugglers.

Why should senior church leaders be more critical of Putin than of our government when our government are doing things which aren't ethical. You don't need to be overly smart to know that Putin is doing bad things. However when politicians in this country so something with questionable ethics then yes that should expect to be questioned by the leadership of the church in this country.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This, Johnson's very good at this. "I am nothing like as bad as Putin" [which is true] "so how dare you criticise me?"

So should we not criticise Trump, Orban, Erdogan, or Le Pen, because none of them are as bad as Putin? Should we not criticise Xi Jinping, because he's not quite as bad as Putin?

The right will, of course, ignore this advice when making attacks of their own. Johnson will continue to freely attack Starmer, and the right will continue to attack former Labour PMs such as Blair or Brown, or moderate former Tory politicians, such as Major or Heseltine. They will of course not follow their own advice that none of these people are anywhere near as bad as Putin, and thus should not be attacked.
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,901
Location
UK
Putin isn't as bad as Hitler, so maybe we should cut him some slack?

(I'm joking btw!)
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,033
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Female, ethnic minority. Say no more.

Come on. This didn't stop Patel being gently shown the door by Theresa May in 2017. Maybe we should attribute her bout of staying power to the current PM who seems incapable of seeing wrongdoing in anything she says or does. He is obviously keen to encourage and enable her worst instincts.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,402
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Female, ethnic minority. Say no more.

I do find it mildly ironic that someone who is clearly descended from an immigrant family (though I know not how far back) is so strongly against, er, immigration.

This to me makes her a rank hypocrite. It sits up there with those who buy a house on a new estate and object when another new estate is built next to it, but worse.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I do find it mildly ironic that someone who is clearly descended from an immigrant family (though I know not how far back) is so strongly against, er, immigration.

Immediately descended. Her Grandparents were born in India, her parents born in Uganda before migrating in the 60s- immediately prior to the deportation of all Asians from Uganda by then dictator Gen. Idi Amin.

International business times story, 2013
East Anglian Daily Times story, 2012

Then again, her father ran as a UKIP candidate in 2013, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Guardian story, 2013
 

Enthusiast

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,226
I do find it mildly ironic that someone who is clearly descended from an immigrant family (though I know not how far back) is so strongly against, er, immigration.

This to me makes her a rank hypocrite. It sits up there with those who buy a house on a new estate and object when another new estate is built next to it, but worse.
Is she against immigration? Or is she simply against people landing here in large numbers and without leave? People who are termed "asylum seekers" but who, in fact, are simply economic migrants who don't like it too much where they are (i.e. northern France) and who prefer not to use the official channels to enter this country?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,402
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Is she against immigration? Or is she simply against people landing here in large numbers and without leave? People who are termed "asylum seekers" but who, in fact, are simply economic migrants who don't like it too much where they are (i.e. northern France) and who prefer not to use the official channels to enter this country?

If she supports the "hostile environment" approach, which is as much applied to Ukrainian refugees as to economic migrants, then she is against immigration pretty much by default.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
3,297
Location
Leeds
Come on. This didn't stop Patel being gently shown the door by Theresa May in 2017. Maybe we should attribute her bout of staying power to the current PM who seems incapable of seeing wrongdoing in anything she says or does. He is obviously keen to encourage and enable her worst instincts.
Gently shown the door? Priti held and lied to Theresa May about a large number of unofficial meetings between herself and other high-ranking officials in Israel that should have been declared. Theresa and Priti had a meeting and ‘cleared the air’. It then transpired that Priti STILL hadn’t been honest with Theresa. Why keep a liar?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
I do find it mildly ironic that someone who is clearly descended from an immigrant family (though I know not how far back) is so strongly against, er, immigration.

This to me makes her a rank hypocrite. It sits up there with those who buy a house on a new estate and object when another new estate is built next to it, but worse.

Do you believe that every immigrant should support completely unlimited immigration with no restrictions or be labelled a hypocrite?

(Clearly by the way, Priti Patel is not against immigration. She simply believes that it should be managed/restricted to a greater extent than many of her opponents believe)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

If she supports the "hostile environment" approach, which is as much applied to Ukrainian refugees as to economic migrants, then she is against immigration pretty much by default.

That is wrong on at least two counts: Firstly that the 'hostile environment' was aimed only at *illegal immigrants*, not at legitimate immigrants. Supporting the hostile environment does not therefore imply being against immigration per se. And secondly because the hostile environment is not being deliberately applied to Ukrainian refugees. There are certainly many distressing stories about Ukrainians having trouble obtaining visas, but there seems to be ample indication that this is because of administrative problems rather than being a deliberate intention by Government ministers.
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
2,490
Location
Birmingham
I do not get why Patel seems to be able to do anything without getting sacked.
Perhaps Boris feels it's useful to have someone in a senior cabinet position who's more widely disliked than he is in order to absorb some of the flak which would otherwise come his way.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Come on. This didn't stop Patel being gently shown the door by Theresa May in 2017. Maybe we should attribute her bout of staying power to the current PM who seems incapable of seeing wrongdoing in anything she says or does. He is obviously keen to encourage and enable her worst instincts.
I think 'gently' is being generous. She had to abandon an official trip to Africa she had embarked on to return for a meeting with May during which she 'resigned' (which is very likely to mean she was given the option of resigning or being sacked). Nothing was done to hide these events from public gaze. I would have used the word 'humiliatingly' - and I would be surprised if she doesn't resent that for some time to come.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,033
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Gently shown the door? She lied to Theresa May about a large number of unofficial meetings that should have been declared and something you could easily admit to. Why keep a liar?
Well done for unwittingly hit the nail on the head. Her gender and ethnicity weren't a problem then. Why would they be a problem now?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I think 'gently' is being generous

That was the intention :)
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
That was the intention :)
I'm sorry, I did not pick that up! My opinions of Ms Patel prevent me from anything like that generous to her.

Regarding gender and ethnicity, there seems to be no pattern about Johnson's hiring and firing (although anyone adopting the Dorries approach is probably pretty safe). I sometimes wonder whether he doesn't use a method rather similar to the FA Cup draw.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,996
Location
Up the creek
I think that Patel is not really regarded as “one of us” by many in the Conservative Party, including quite a few of those at the top. She is, to a certain extent, being left to carry out those policies that, if the proverbial hits the fan, are most likely to cause major embarrassments (although that is always true to some extent for the Home Secretary). If something goes badly wrong, she can be jettisoned: a nice big sacrifice to keep Big Dog and his best mates safe.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,033
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
My opinions of Ms Patel prevent me from anything like that generous to her.

Re. Patel I do tend to 'type through gritted teeth' if that's a thing.. I really struggle with her policies and her approach to, well, everything she does as Home Secretary. It's quite a feat to make Theresa May's prior stint in that role seem reasonable.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
Is she against immigration? Or is she simply against people landing here in large numbers and without leave? People who are termed "asylum seekers" but who, in fact, are simply economic migrants who don't like it too much where they are (i.e. northern France) and who prefer not to use the official channels to enter this country?

What official channels are there for asylum seekers to enter the UK?
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
3,297
Location
Leeds
Well done for unwittingly hit the nail on the head. Her gender and ethnicity weren't a problem then. Why would they be a problem now?
Female prime minister? Lady in power already. Lying to the big dog? Only so far your background can take you if you’re going to begin lying to the premier of state AFTER you’ve been given the opportunity to make things right.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,033
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Female prime minister? Lady in power already. Lying to the big dog? Only so far your background can take you if you’re going to begin lying to the premier of state AFTER you’ve been given the opportunity to make things right.

Patel is Johnson's heatsink to distract the public from his own ineptitude. Pretty sure he's happy with her right where she is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top