[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[jcdenton08]

Five confirmed dead in the Channel, by the French coastguard, this morning. Three men, a woman and a child.

Very sad every time this happens. Nothing else to be said really. Not sure what it has to do with the Tories though? These tragedies would happen under any government.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Five confirmed dead in the Channel, by the French coastguard, this morning. Three men, a woman and a child.

Very sad indeed.

Odd thread to post such awful news on though.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I hate to say this given the archaic state of the Lords, I prefer it to an elected upper chamber. Here's why.

With an elected upper chamber, whether seats are via FPTP or via some other form of voting, the make up will reflect the position of the electorate at the moment of voting. Now, you can elect an upper chamber either at the same time as the lower chamber is elected, or at mid cycle.

If both chambers are elected at the same time, they will both reflect the electorate at that time in the same way. So if we have a big swing to labour (like seems likely now), the upper chamber will also swing left. In which case, in what way would the upper chamber be motivated to exert checks and balances on parliament?

If on the other hand the electoral cycle is out of synch, what normally happens is after a couple of years the public is bored of that lot in the house of commons and so would vote for the other lot in upper chamber elections. In which case the upper chamber would tend to want to block the initiatives of the house of commons and HMG.

Before anyone starts arguing that if the upper chamber were elected by PR it would me more consensual and would not block HMG's government's bill reflexly.....what would be the point of that? It would be the equivalent of the weapons inspection protocol of Hans Blix. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing, other than be polite and drink tea. Probably that chamomile muck..

We either want an upper chamber to exert checks and balances.... or not.

In any case I'm pretty sure that a tory government, fed up with having archbishops and the like blocking one of their madcap bills, changed the law so that Lords can piss parliament about for only so long (a year?) whereupon and whence the outcome is resolved by parliament. Thus Lords can delay but not block.

When MPs were men and women of honour, having one's collar felt by Lords meant something and HMG would play ball. However, for quite some time now, the Tories have been run by men and women of dishonour: chavs, little lord Fauntleroys, carpetbaggers and shysters. They don't care about democracy, and only about getting their own way.

So we may as well bin the Lords, but I'd be happy to leave it as is. Changing it to an elected house would be the worst option as it would give an appearance of greater democracy that would be illusional, and its behaviour may become more capricious that what we have now. And as I have said 100 million times, we are not f***ing Germans, Danes or Italians. I don't care what they do. If anyone mentions Germany I may have to trot out an old joke that would probably earn me an infraction at the very least.

I think the Lords should be appointed, but by a committee of people/MPs from across the spectrum. Instead of by whoever happens to be in power/resigning at the time.
If everybody (or I don't know, maybe 75%) of people on said committee don't agree to somebody being appointed, they don't get in.
No implication of democratic mandate, people should be appointed purely on the basis of competence and integrity. And I guess actually being willing to do it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Very sad indeed.

Odd thread to post such awful news on though.

The whole point of the Tory government passing the Rwanda bill was that it is a deterrent to small boats. Maybe these poor deceased souls didn't hear the news last night?
Dead migrants in the Channel are very much part of this thread slating the Conservatives.

I am heartbroken at what this country has become.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Very sad every time this happens. Nothing else to be said really. Not sure what it has to do with the Tories though? These tragedies would happen under any government.

President Macron offered to have an asylum processing centre in France, but Theresa May turned it down. Before 2018, there were very few boats, and easily dealt with by Border Force officials.
It is very much to do with this government.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Five confirmed dead in the Channel, by the French coastguard, this morning. Three men, a woman and a child.

Soon that will all stop, with the sensational new deterrent.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think the Lords should be appointed, but by a committee of people/MPs from across the spectrum. Instead of by whoever happens to be in power/resigning at the time.
If everybody (or I don't know, maybe 75%) of people on said committee don't agree to somebody being appointed, they don't get in.
No implication of democratic mandate, people should be appointed purely on the basis of competence and integrity. And I guess actually being willing to do it.

Good suggestion.

 

[nicko31]

President Macron offered to have an asylum processing centre in France, but Theresa May turned it down. Before 2018, there were very few boats, and easily dealt with by Border Force officials.
It is very much to do with this government.

Not to mention binning the Dublin agreement, ie there's no longer a returns arrangement with France. Boom time for criminal gangs, esp with Europol binned and data sharing scrapped.

Soaring immigration legal and illegal is the work of the Tories and their botched Brexit. What's more Farage aided their large majority in 2019 so he's an accessory too.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Good suggestion.

I can pretend to think we should elect it using Party List PR if that would be more fun?

 

[Audax]

I hate to say this given the archaic state of the Lords, I prefer it to an elected upper chamber. Here's why.

With an elected upper chamber, whether seats are via FPTP or via some other form of voting, the make up will reflect the position of the electorate at the moment of voting. Now, you can elect an upper chamber either at the same time as the lower chamber is elected, or at mid cycle.

If both chambers are elected at the same time, they will both reflect the electorate at that time in the same way. So if we have a big swing to labour (like seems likely now), the upper chamber will also swing left. In which case, in what way would the upper chamber be motivated to exert checks and balances on parliament?

If on the other hand the electoral cycle is out of synch, what normally happens is after a couple of years the public is bored of that lot in the house of commons and so would vote for the other lot in upper chamber elections. In which case the upper chamber would tend to want to block the initiatives of the house of commons and HMG.

Before anyone starts arguing that if the upper chamber were elected by PR it would me more consensual and would not block HMG's government's bill reflexly.....what would be the point of that? It would be the equivalent of the weapons inspection protocol of Hans Blix. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing, other than be polite and drink tea. Probably that chamomile muck..

We either want an upper chamber to exert checks and balances.... or not.

In any case I'm pretty sure that a tory government, fed up with having archbishops and the like blocking one of their madcap bills, changed the law so that Lords can piss parliament about for only so long (a year?) whereupon and whence the outcome is resolved by parliament. Thus Lords can delay but not block.

When MPs were men and women of honour, having one's collar felt by Lords meant something and HMG would play ball. However, for quite some time now, the Tories have been run by men and women of dishonour: chavs, little lord Fauntleroys, carpetbaggers and shysters. They don't care about democracy, and only about getting their own way.

So we may as well bin the Lords, but I'd be happy to leave it as is. Changing it to an elected house would be the worst option as it would give an appearance of greater democracy that would be illusional, and its behaviour may become more capricious that what we have now. And as I have said 100 million times, we are not f***ing Germans, Danes or Italians. I don't care what they do. If anyone mentions Germany I may have to trot out an old joke that would probably earn me an infraction at the very least.

Might be worth doing some research into electorally defined 2 chamber systems that exist already before jumping to conclusions about how they'd work? eg Australia has a second chamber (the Senate) that is elected via a form of PR. Senator terms are offset - unless there's a "double dissolution" general election (interestingly, in Australia the Rwanda bill would have triggered this rather than go through extended ping-pong) only half the chamber is up for election at each general election. Very, very rarely does it produce a majority for any given party. But equally, it is only very rarely that the Senate imposes its will on the lower chamber. But it does exert enough power to prevent any excesses from an incumbent government from being forced through the way we've seen the Rwanda bill pushed through.

FWIW - I personally think the Rwanda bill is undemocratic. As voters, we've never been given an opportunity to vote against it at a GE. It's never been in a manifesto. Just because the government that has forced it through was democratically elected, does not make the bill itself democratically implemented.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I hate to say this given the archaic state of the Lords, I prefer it to an elected upper chamber. Here's why.

With an elected upper chamber, whether seats are via FPTP or via some other form of voting, the make up will reflect the position of the electorate at the moment of voting. Now, you can elect an upper chamber either at the same time as the lower chamber is elected, or at mid cycle.

If both chambers are elected at the same time, they will both reflect the electorate at that time in the same way. So if we have a big swing to labour (like seems likely now), the upper chamber will also swing left. In which case, in what way would the upper chamber be motivated to exert checks and balances on parliament?

If on the other hand the electoral cycle is out of synch, what normally happens is after a couple of years the public is bored of that lot in the house of commons and so would vote for the other lot in upper chamber elections. In which case the upper chamber would tend to want to block the initiatives of the house of commons and HMG.

Before anyone starts arguing that if the upper chamber were elected by PR it would me more consensual and would not block HMG's government's bill reflexly.....what would be the point of that? It would be the equivalent of the weapons inspection protocol of Hans Blix. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing, other than be polite and drink tea. Probably that chamomile muck..

We either want an upper chamber to exert checks and balances.... or not.

In any case I'm pretty sure that a tory government, fed up with having archbishops and the like blocking one of their madcap bills, changed the law so that Lords can piss parliament about for only so long (a year?) whereupon and whence the outcome is resolved by parliament. Thus Lords can delay but not block.

When MPs were men and women of honour, having one's collar felt by Lords meant something and HMG would play ball. However, for quite some time now, the Tories have been run by men and women of dishonour: chavs, little lord Fauntleroys, carpetbaggers and shysters. They don't care about democracy, and only about getting their own way.

So we may as well bin the Lords, but I'd be happy to leave it as is. Changing it to an elected house would be the worst option as it would give an appearance of greater democracy that would be illusional, and its behaviour may become more capricious that what we have now. And as I have said 100 million times, we are not f***ing Germans, Danes or Italians. I don't care what they do. If anyone mentions Germany I may have to trot out an old joke that would probably earn me an infraction at the very least.

I agree with you.

I class the idea of an elected upper chamber in the same way as VAR or Kim Kardashian. Superficially attractive, but when you think a little harder about what the idea would entail obvious problems soon become apparent..

I also don't mind it being archaic. I don't particularly mind the idea of mad old viscounts being there by virtue of their birth At worst they are going to put up some resistance to social change, but are never really going to stop anything. What I object to is politicians putting KGB operatives, party donors, or mysterious young women with no obvious credentials, but almost certainly a proclivity for blackmail. I object to Prime Ministers being able add lords when they resign, even if they've lasted for a shorter period of time than a lettuce.

 

[Scappa]

Funny how the Tories suddenly complain that the House of Lords is undemocratic, and so has no right to obstruct the Bills of an elected government.

They've been in government for 14 years, so had plenty of time to reform the Second Chamber.

And of course, if and when the House of Lords blocks the legislation of a Labour government, the Tories will be praising it as essential to checks-and-balances, and a vital bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism.

Usual hypocritical Tory BS.

Odd for a party that gives out peerages like they were dodgy PPE contracts

 

[TomandJerry]

Goodness me we've dropped so low:

"Civil servants must obey ministers if ordered to ignore ECHR injunctions blocking Rwanda flights, Sunak says"

 

[Audax]

Goodness me we've dropped so low:

"Civil servants must obey ministers if ordered to ignore ECHR injunctions blocking Rwanda flights, Sunak says"

I would not be surprised if we see a sequence like this as the year progresses:

* First Rwanda flight is booked.
* Those scheduled to be on that flight launch ECHR challenge.
* Airline that initially agreed to do it backs out after it causes PR nightmare.
* Government reverts to using RAF planes.
* ECHR injunction blocks flight.
* Ministers order civil servants / RAF to ignore injunction.
* Civil servants / RAF crew launch own case in UK courts and/or resign in protest.
* Next General Election gets postponed longer and longer because Sunak is so hellbent on getting a flight off the ground before going to the polls.
* Flight continues to be delayed by ongoing court cases and civil service / RAF reluctance.
* GE is held in January 2025 at the lastest possible legal date; no flight ever gets off the ground.

 

[Stat Brother]

They've got nowhere to go in Rwanda, as the Rwandan government have sold off the housing we bought.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Very sad every time this happens. Nothing else to be said really. Not sure what it has to do with the Tories though? These tragedies would happen under any government.

It has to do with the Tories in as much as they have unleashed their strategy to stop all this today. And the strategy has been widely mocked for pretty much every reason: costs, impracticability, and the fact it is not likely to be a deterrent to those wishing to make the channel crossing. The strategy became law yesterday. Today more people died trying to cross the channel.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would not be surprised if we see a sequence like this as the year progresses:

* First Rwanda flight is booked.
* Those scheduled to be on that flight launch ECHR challenge.
* Airline that initially agreed to do it backs out after it causes PR nightmare.
* Government reverts to using RAF planes.
* ECHR injunction blocks flight.
* Ministers order civil servants / RAF to ignore injunction.
* Civil servants / RAF crew launch own case in UK courts and/or resign in protest.
* Next General Election gets postponed longer and longer because Sunak is so hellbent on getting a flight off the ground before going to the polls.
* Flight continues to be delayed by ongoing court cases and civil service / RAF reluctance.
* GE is held in January 2025 at the lastest possible legal date; no flight ever gets off the ground.

And these Tories are defenestrated in the election.
Hopefully.
The absolute floaters.

 

[Eric the meek]

I still find it difficult to get my head round how a major UK political party could come up with the idea of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, claiming it is a safe country. And then trying to bulldoze their way through any court decision that gets in their way.

The stultifying arrogance of it. It's the kind of thing that happens in other countries. Not Britain.

 

[vegster]

And these Tories are defenestrated in the election.
Hopefully.
The absolute floaters.

Please don't let them be Floaters...we need to flush them away once and for all !

 

[Audax]

Please don't let them be Floaters...we need to flush them away once and for all !

Either way, they're a bunch of stinkers that add nothing to the benefit of the rest of us.