This is my point - it's easy to criticise and say they'd do things differently, but he hardly ever comes out with a clear alternative policy proposal. Just looking to ride any wave of media/public negativity meanwhile the voters still struggle to know what he stands for.
Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson has confirmed the government is considering withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, saying “all options are on the table” in the wake of last night’s cancellation of a deportation flight to Rwanda.
starmer has refused to oppose it on principle since its inception. now he's barely opposing it at all. he might have calculated that it's not in his interest to oppose it, like everything else this government seems to do, but he's been weak on it. and it's because of the red wall. with opposition like this who needs support?Are you seriously trying to pretend that Labour supports this? Purely because they don't comment on it? I assume you saw Yvette Coopers effective take down of Priti Patel after PMQ's?
It's like saying that shooting yourself in the foot with a shotgun is bad, but because no one has suggested an alternative then we should probably accept that we can't criticise that it's a stupid move. Some mental gymnastics going on there.
Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson has confirmed the government is considering withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, saying “all options are on the table” in the wake of last night’s cancellation of a deportation flight to Rwanda.
Are you seriously trying to pretend that Labour supports this? Purely because they don't comment on it? I assume you saw Yvette Coopers effective take down of Priti Patel after PMQ's?
It's like saying that shooting yourself in the foot with a shotgun is bad, but because no one has suggested an alternative then we should probably accept that we can't criticise that it's a stupid move. Some mental gymnastics going on there.
Not knowing the difference between the ECHR and EU? Not a disqualifying matter for the chief legal officer for the Government.In an interview on the World at One, Suella Braverman, the attorney general, said the government was “definitely open to assessing” what its options were in relation to the European convention on human rights. Asked if withdrawal was an option, she replied:
Well the government has been clear in the media aftermath of the ruling issued by the [European court of human rights] that all options are on the table. So we’re not ruling anything in and we’re not ruling anything out.
I think what is clear is it’s a very frustrating situation that we find ourselves in ... Many people will have assumed that we took control back of our borders when we left the European Union.
It is a decision that has caused a setback. That’s clear to see. We are considering our response in relation to that decision but more broadly we are definitely open to assessing all options available as to what our relationship should be going forward with the [ECHR].
Ladies and gentlemen. the Attorney-General:
Not knowing the difference between the ECHR and EU? Not a disqualifying matter for the chief legal officer for the Government.
Question is, do you actually believe any member of the cabinet actually knows what they're doing? Subterfuge and conning the British public works in parts of the UK. It doesn't work outside the UK.
Nothing more than I would expect from the shameful Tories.
The UK is one of 47 European countries who are part of the ECHR. So the 46 others are wrong and the UK is right.
Oh I believe that it does work outside the UK.
The US, China and Russia let alone Brazil.
France must be the only country where the government is as honest as the day is long.
This is the first time I recall that an entire Cabinet is completely incompetent and are solely there because of their hatred of the EU and no other criterion.Question is, do you actually believe any member of the cabinet actually knows what they're doing? Subterfuge and conning the British public works in parts of the UK. It doesn't work outside the UK.
What I meant was no-one outside the UK believes a single word the British government says. There are plenty of dodgy politicians around the world.
We've got laugh a minute Mélenchon who's like Corbyn on speed with personality.
He wants to reduce retirement age to 60 (bankrupt the country.) Introduce a 6th Republic which involves abolishing the post of Prime Minister and to be able to do that he wants to become, guess what, Prime Minister.
Trying to keep sane in a world of lunatics is not so easy.
This is the first time I recall that an entire Cabinet is completely incompetent and are solely there because of their hatred of the EU and no other criterion.
Ladies and gentlemen. the Attorney-General:
Not knowing the difference between the ECHR and EU? Not a disqualifying matter for the chief legal officer for the Government.
Are you seriously trying to pretend that Labour supports this? Purely because they don't comment on it? I assume you saw Yvette Coopers effective take down of Priti Patel after PMQ's?
It's like saying that shooting yourself in the foot with a shotgun is bad, but because no one has suggested an alternative then we should probably accept that we can't criticise that it's a stupid move. Some mental gymnastics going on there.
Yep. Everyone I know evolved from single cell bacteria in Liverpool then migrated to Manchester after evolving.Speak for yourself mate, me and my relatives all emerged out of the scala naturae of this green and pleasant land. You'll find none of your foreign muck round this way.
I know what you mean.Are you seriously trying to pretend that Labour supports this? Purely because they don't comment on it? I assume you saw Yvette Coopers effective take down of Priti Patel after PMQ's?
It's like saying that shooting yourself in the foot with a shotgun is bad, but because no one has suggested an alternative then we should probably accept that we can't criticise that it's a stupid move. Some mental gymnastics going on there.
She's an absolute incompetent. Paving the way from Tory incompetence to a sleep walk into potential fascism with no effective checks and balances.Ladies and gentlemen. the Attorney-General:
Not knowing the difference between the ECHR and EU? Not a disqualifying matter for the chief legal officer for the Government.
That’s a false equivalence - the original ask was, aside from criticising the policy, what are Labour proposing be done with Migrannts as a policy that can be cross checked as a true alternative?
We know Starmer is more intelligent than Boris, so it’s no wonder he continues to put on ‘clinics’ at PMQ’s. Equally, Yvette Cooper holding her own against Patel is not much of a surprise either.
However, let’s say I was a previous Tory voter but became disillusioned due to Boris’ lies and overall moral compass and this Rwanda policy was another one that drove me further away - exactly what is Labour putting forward as an alternative? ‘We don’t want any migrants crossing the channel’ well, nobody wants that even the Tories - what’s the alternative?
‘They can claim in France’ well they could always do that couldn’t they? One of the main reasons they got in the dinghies was because the current application process is a mess. So is there going to be safeguarding for their travel to the UK? Will they be fast tracked to avoid backlogs? Will families be able to be kept together, if so how & at what cost? He mentioned the ‘criminal gangs’ what does he propose be done with them?
Right now criticising the policy is an easy win for the 20-second news cycle were on, but proposing nothing in response is a way to hide behind accountability and future reference at the time of the general election. You can simply say you opposed all the ‘bad’ Tory policies to attempt to secure votes from the left, centre & right at the same time.
I know what you mean.
But it would be nice to have clear opposition from the party leader rather than fence sitting though.
Lord Geidt has resigned now.
It's a sad reflection of this country that Labour coming out now and saying they will reverse this policy will torpedo their chances of reclaiming some "red wall" seats.
That said, I can't see how Labour seat on the fence for this one. It's such a disgusting policy.
Some interesting points, the reality is the Tories have an 80 seat majority, what Labour say is in relation to this isn't going to have any bearing other than a bit of pantomime. Suggesting a proposal from Labour will do anything on this subject is naive politics at best. Starmer entertaining a response or even a position on a policy that was so flawed he knew full well would end up in the court, is probably the best response here.
Around the election, if this matter is a hot topical debate, then it would reference some view on a policy around it. However considering it's another smoke screen from the Tories to take headlines and pressure away from the domestic challenges around cost of living (which will be the real vote winning policy at the next election), it's some effort to bring a clusterfeck of a policy like this to then have the headlines move around Labour's response rather than focus on a government policy which the ECHR are having to get involved with.
Isn't Northern Ireland's economy doing pretty well compared to the rest of the UK?
Northern Ireland, along with London are the two best economically performing regions in the UK.
That is our attorney general lying on national TV!
Unless they have some weird figures based on internal trade that shows a different picture.
Isn't Northern Ireland's economy doing pretty well compared to the rest of the UK?
Northern Ireland, along with London are the two best economically performing regions in the UK.
That is our attorney general lying on national TV!
Unless they have some weird figures based on internal trade that shows a different picture.
Do you have a link so I can see the other regions?
