The United Kingdom: The RISHI RICH Sunak ERA

This is the day that will tell us if there will be a June election - if there's enough Tories vote against him purely with the aim of destabilising him then it's a racing certainty. On the other paw, if they can't get a flight to Rwanda happening, that's a major prong of their election campaign absolutely fucked and an open goal for Reform to split the vote and Tories are inherently self-interested.
 
It's just an exercise in buying time, isn't it? If the council elections are a wipeout next week and the Tories start moving against Rishi again, he can now say that they're risking the Rwanda policy being delivered if they remove him in the next 10-12 weeks.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain why the Lords seem to be unlikely to go for double insistence? Does it really harm Labour if the Tories flagship policy is killed before an election? Who is the person that would switch back to Tory from Labour over it? And certainly, would there be more of them than those that get pushed to Reform after Tory failure over it?
 
The Lords cannot stop the bill, it cannot override the Commons. The best it has is to delay. The press conference today is Sunak saying they will not drop it (the only hope to actually kill it). So essentially the Lords can either delay further into the night, angering the elected chamber, or call the governments bluff.

Either way Labour should still oppose it in both houses, it’s no sweat off their back really. They know the policy is inherently flawed and wont work.
 
He's such a small man

1000011641.jpg
 
gggggg said:
The Lords cannot stop the bill, it cannot override the Commons. The best it has is to delay. The press conference today is Sunak saying they will not drop it (the only hope to actually kill it). So essentially the Lords can either delay further into the night, angering the elected chamber, or call the governments bluff.

Either way Labour should still oppose it in both houses, it’s no sweat off their back really. They know the policy is inherently flawed and wont work.
Click to expand...
I mean, the Lords can functionally kill the bill, since there isn't the time to go through the process of the Commons overruling the Lords before an election is due? (unless weird proroguing parliament stuff can happen?)
 
ZenGiraffe said:
I mean, the Lords can functionally kill the bill, since there isn't the time to go through the process of the Commons overruling the Lords before an election is due? (unless weird proroguing parliament stuff can happen?)
Click to expand...

The periods between the ‘ping pong’ would get shorter and shorter, the gov control the timetable after all. Theoretically the Lords could keep pushing it until the end of the year, but it would become existential eventually, taking up every minute of the day, week after week. It’s HIGHLY unlikely, the Lords are not in that business of overruling an elected Parliament.
 
gggggg said:
The periods between the ‘ping pong’ would get shorter and shorter, the gov control the timetable after all. Theoretically the Lords could keep pushing it until the end of the year, but it would become existential eventually, taking up every minute of the day, week after week. It’s HIGHLY unlikely, the Lords are not in that business of overruling an elected Parliament.
Click to expand...
But if the Lords just pass the same amendment twice, does that not stop ping pong?

 
gggggg said:
It’s HIGHLY unlikely, the Lords are not in that business of overruling an elected Parliament.
Click to expand...

I agree it isn't likely. However, one political commentator did make the point this morning that although this is an elected Parliament, Rwanda was not a manifesto policy, so the usual argument of "it's the will of the people" doesn't quite hold the same clout as it might in other circumstances.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
But if the Lords just pass the same amendment twice, does that not stop ping pong?

Click to expand...
It’s complex, but ultimately the Commons has the upper hand and can essentially force the Lords to stand down … it’s the politics of the situation (or precedence) that will rule. The Lords delaying something indefinitely is just not in their interests, or, they’ll say, the country’s
 
It would be unusual for the double insistence rule to be ignored, but not without precedent. Not that this party cares much for precedent.
 
Slave said:
I agree it isn't likely. However, one political commentator did make the point this morning that although this is an elected Parliament, Rwanda was not a manifesto policy, so the usual argument of "it's the will of the people" doesn't quite hold the same clout as it might in other circumstances.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Daily Express.
 
lvtz said:
it seems such an utterly ridiculous sentence to be standing behind.. out of all the things that are wrong with Britain it's about 'stopping the boats'? The don't they just write 'stop immigration'? At least that way the intention is spelled out.
Click to expand...
They've had to pivot because they have people whose parents or grandparents were migrants in the cabinet, including the PM himself. It beggars belief that the Tories failed to consider, whilst courting the worst Little Englanders in the 10s, that they could have a non-white leader and that their own rhetoric would see some of their voters turning away from them. But that's the electoral cycle for you - anything get elected and fuck the consequences until the seeds you sow start to destabilise your own crop.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: LTZ
octophone said:
They've had to pivot because they have people whose parents or grandparents were migrants in the cabinet, including the PM himself. It beggars belief that the Tories failed to consider, whilst courting the worst Little Englanders in the 10s, that they could have a non-white leader and that their own rhetoric would see some of their voters turning away from them. But that's the electoral cycle for you - anything get elected and fuck the consequences until the seeds you sow start to destabilise your own crop.
Click to expand...
It's astounding just how despicable these people are. There really are no words.
 
WHY IS HE SO ADAMANT TO PASS THIS BILL

you have 6 months left and absolutely nothing to lose. Why spend it trying to pass something so unpopular with no upside? The small fraction of racists who want it DON’T LIKE YOU ANYWAY
 
So, how does this go from here? First plane in July, boats keep coming, Tories go into election in an even worse position? Have Labour committed to scrapping this shit? I know they are every bit as morally bankrupt but surely they'll have pledged to ditch this utter fucking waste of time, money, energy and what microbes of goodwill towards the UK still exist internationally?
 
I have to limit my exposure to the Rwanda stuff, it’s the most sickening thing in British politics for me of recent memory.

And is this moron think it’ll win votes? Being INHUMANE doesn’t often lead to POPULARITY WINS
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTZ
gggggg said:
Correcting myself: Labour has committed to immediately end the deportations. They haven’t committed to repealing the act itself (which would be a lengthier process).
Click to expand...
Well, that's enough for now. Repealing legislation can be complex.
 
I initially eye-rolled at the idea of Tories fleeing to join the "winning side" before the inevitable.

But seemingly he's also not standing in the next election anyway. So perhaps a quite fair and genuine knee to the Tories' groin. Huzzah
 
Shoat said:
I initially eye-rolled at the idea of Tories fleeing to join the "winning side" before the inevitable.

But seemingly he's also not standing in the next election anyway. So perhaps a quite fair and genuine knee to the Tories' groin. Huzzah
Click to expand...
Yes - not standing and looks to be genuinely appalled by the approach to mental health.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top Bottom