Westminster Politics

F6lBVRoXEAAI9kO
To be fair there's a big difference between carrying something out and undoing it. I do hope that Labour voters don't go into Full Cnut mode like some Tory voters have, which has just emboldened their MPs into showing their true colours.
 

The stupid thing about this is that very few of the motor manufacturers will be making petrol or diesel cars by 2030. And Sunak knows this. So his latest policy is meaningless. Just like not having to separate recycling into 7 different containers. And meat tax which was never going to happen.
The gullible among us will have fallen for this complete rubbish though.
 
The Tories tactics are now perfectly clear.
Say we are going to cut spending on pretty much everything and force Labour into challenging this.
And bingo. They can then go back to the Tory accusation that is as old as the hills.
Accuse Labour of having the magic money tree and spending more than the Tories.
 
Say we are going to cut spending on pretty much everything and force Labour into challenging this.
Labour won't challenge it. But when they get in, they also won't challenge it imo. It's like expecting Trump to turn liberal after being elected. What they're doing now is a concerted establishment effort. The Tories are speaking the completely honest establishment line (this is what ruling class, whatever the rank, actually plans to do). Labour will protest as they have and then merely do precisely what the Tories are saying when elected.

Starmer is PM in waiting. Meanwhile, PM as it stands is writing the new PM's manifesto for him (that is where it's at now) via public announcements periodically. From liberalism to kind of right-wing madness which no-one bothers to challenge for fear of offering an alternative. Biden, if you follow American politics, offered an alternative (whatever about what he did/is doing when in office). In rhetoric, he actually deviated. You cannot tell me the UK is more right-wing than the US and yet no rhetorical deviation.
 
This is a fecking ongoing court case, why is she getting involved. Totally irresponsible.


If only she used to be attorney general with oversight of the CPS and knew this.

“The CPS reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the officer are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.
“It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...shot-chris-kaba-in-london-charged-with-murder
 
My local MP is involved in a church that does that!

Reminds me, I need to get my ID sorted for next year
My local MP is gay, married his husband but was an active member of the Christian Institute to further hus career. They seem to have no problem holding conflicting opinions if it serves them.
 
My local MP is gay, married his husband but was an active member of the Christian Institute to further hus career. They seem to have no problem holding conflicting opinions if it serves them.

When they passed the two child benefit cap, they made sure that MPs could claim benefits for three children.
 
This is classic Braverman tactics.
She has failed completely to deal effectively with the issue of small boats crossing.
So, she is looking for something else to blame it on and has focused on the UN Refugee Convention to blame.
Pathetic. But she knows this will go down well with the gullible.
 
Also inheritance tax is going? But we have no money for hungry children? Ah well. They will probably be dead before voting age anyway.
I missed this as was away for a few days, but can't find any reference to it. A proposed "cut" is all I can see.
 
Also inheritance tax is going? But we have no money for hungry children? Ah well. They will probably be dead before voting age anyway.

It’s funny how you need a magic money tree to propose new spending but you don’t need a magic money tree to cut sources of income.
 
Check this thread every day and it's a constant source of depression. Might as well be called "Look what these Tory cnuts have broken today".

Genuinely feels like they're taking a wrecking ball to as much as they can before the next election and I honestly don't know if this country will ever recover from the last 13 years.
 
Check this thread every day and it's a constant source of depression. Might as well be called "Look what these Tory cnuts have broken today".

Genuinely feels like they're taking a wrecking ball to as much as they can before the next election and I honestly don't know if this country will ever recover from the last 13 years.

It won't. The nation is in serious decline that will only get worse, and our society is groomed into serving the needs of the most privileged so we're fecked.
 
Check this thread every day and it's a constant source of depression. Might as well be called "Look what these Tory cnuts have broken today".

Genuinely feels like they're taking a wrecking ball to as much as they can before the next election and I honestly don't know if this country will ever recover from the last 13 years.
So it cannot be fixed in four years and they can sneak back into power.
 
Braverman says UN refugee convention shouldn’t protect women and gay people just facing discrimination

Extracts from the speech have been briefed in advance, and they show that Braverman is making a provocative argument, grounded in the theory that a convention drawn up more than 70 years ago does not work today.
  • Braverman will claim that almost 800 million people could claim the right to move to another country under the convention. She was criticised in March for telling MPs that there were 100 million people in the world who might qualify for asylum in the UK. (She did not say they were all heading for the Channel, but some people felt that was the message she was trying to convey.) Today she is using a figure almost eight times as large. She will reportedly say:
When the refugee convention was signed, it conferred protection on some two million people in Europe.

According to analysis by Nick Timothy and Karl Williams for the Centre for Policy Studies, it now confers the notional right to move to another country upon at least 780 million people.

It is therefore incumbent upon politicians and thought leaders to ask whether the refugee convention, and the way it has come to be interpreted through our courts, is fit for our modern age or whether it is in need of reform.
  • She will says that people should not be able to claim asylum just because they face discrimination as women, or for being gay. She will reportedly say:
I think most members of the public would recognise those fleeing a real risk of death, torture, oppression or violence, as in need of protection.

However, as case law has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from ‘persecution’, in favour of something more akin to a definition of ‘discrimination’ …

Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.

Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.

But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ion-discrimination-uk-politics-latest-updates
 
Braverman says UN refugee convention shouldn’t protect women and gay people just facing discrimination

Extracts from the speech have been briefed in advance, and they show that Braverman is making a provocative argument, grounded in the theory that a convention drawn up more than 70 years ago does not work today.
  • Braverman will claim that almost 800 million people could claim the right to move to another country under the convention. She was criticised in March for telling MPs that there were 100 million people in the world who might qualify for asylum in the UK. (She did not say they were all heading for the Channel, but some people felt that was the message she was trying to convey.) Today she is using a figure almost eight times as large. She will reportedly say:

  • She will says that people should not be able to claim asylum just because they face discrimination as women, or for being gay. She will reportedly say:


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ion-discrimination-uk-politics-latest-updates

We need to look after our own gays first.
 
Labour need to be calling for a public enquiry into PPE contracts and backing criminal prosecutions if wrongdoing has occurred. It's ridiculous the amount of money given away.

We know they won't but I genuinely don't see how this could be anything but a win across the board as a manifesto promise no matter what your political leaning.
 
A Tory MP who does not understand what 'the UK' means.
Happily, he is currently suspended by the Tories for being caught in a sting where he met with an undercover reporter posing as a company who offered to pay him for revealing a commercially sensitive white paper early. So just an MP and hopefully soon to be subject to a recall if the standards committee do the right thing
 
He stood in NI assembly elections a few years ago too.
He is my local MP, parachuted in at the last election. Do you remember much about him from his failed attempt in NI?