General British politics discussion thread

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121368076#Comment_121368076

For a resignation letter, it's full of criticism of and personal jibes at Sunak. If anything, I'd go the other way and say it's stronger than I expected.

Leroy42

The letter is pretty devastating for Sunak, and proves rather than previously implies, how weak he really is. It is clear now how scared he was of her and how much in her pocket he was.

On the other hand, as pointed out, what does it say about her that she accepted all of this and didn't resign? Cabinet collective responsibility means she agreed to all of this.

Headshot

Nothing gives more satisfaction to see the Tory party tearing itself apart

That Braverman letter is delusion at it's finest but the right of her party will eat that up all day and there's already a letter into 1922 committee

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121367921#Comment_121367921

But that's your opinion. You think that they don't have a mandate.

Your initial argument was that the public at large would not let them away with another PM change. There's no evidence to support that. If the general public didn't revolt at the Truss appointment, and didn't revolt at the Sunak appointment, there's no chance they they say "oh, not-directly-elected Malevolent Incompetent #3 is just a step too far!"

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121369098#Comment_121369098

I made no such argument I simply wondered if they would finally wake up, If you read the same post where I asked that question I also finished it with thinking it was an unlikely thing to happen so the needlessly antagonistic response was entirely unnecessary on your part.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121368683#Comment_121368683

On the contrary, it shows that Braverman thought Sunak was in her pocket, but he turned out not to be. Her whole whinge is that Sunak wouldn't do what she told him to do.

VinLieger

This mornings polling post the reshuffle put Labour at theoretically 550 seats with the Lib Dems in 2nd with 31 and the torys in 3rd with 20. Likely an extreme scenario and wont manifest in an election but even so these are insane numbers.

Also Labour with that insane theoretical seat majority still are only polling at 49%.... FPtP is completely undemocratic

Timberrrrrrrr

Rwanda deal is ruled unlawful by the supreme Court, surely the end of Sunak now.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370605#Comment_121370605

Why is it the end of Sunak. It was originally a Borris proposal. It was the conservative right that pushed it. He just moved on. It's shows the moderates many that wanted it that it is not a runner. Braverman will continue to leak but she is fighting for leadership after the election as is Sunak. Sunak hopes for the moderate right, the center and the wets to row in behind him.

Extremists on the left of the labour party or on the right of the Conservative party always cost there party elections

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370663#Comment_121370663

Because it was part of Sunak's grand plan to stop the boats from France; examples from three UK newspapers as well as he's the current PM and the appeal was lost under his watch. In short while he may not be the creator of the plan but he's held as accountable for it (and it ties in to Braveman's resignation letter about not having a plan B etc. even though it should have been her responsibility as part of her minister role)

ancapailldorcha

And, as surely as night follows day, the next target is our rights:

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1724754288994381870

There were threats before Brexit that watering down human rights was the goal. Heck, repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act was a manifesto pledge for 2015 if memory serves. The one silver lining is that they're too incompetent to do anything before they get the boot.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370845#Comment_121370845

Worth noting as well that this MP was basically allowed to blather on about ignoring the ECHR without any challenge or comeback. Nothing substantive anyway that amounted to a challenge about the glib suggestion that UK drop out of a foundational protection for human rights.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370912#Comment_121370912

True but this is something they're clearly desperate to do. I don't know if it would make the UK a pariah but it'd be a very ugly look. I don't know what's worse: the aspiration to gut human rights or the endless blustering and incompetent virtue signalling to an unfit-for-purpose media establishment.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370845#Comment_121370845

But has the Supreme court not said that resiling from ECHR would not be enough. There are other international treaties which would also need resiling from. Including the Geneva convention relating to treatment of refugees . And possibly others.

I think the ball is now back in the court of the right wingers who need to show a convincing strategy. And the UK going around the world resiling from international treaties freely entered into is not a winning strategy. Nor will it do anything for the value of ay trade deal the UK might sign up to only to cancel at a future date.

breezy1985

This government know the refugee policy is unlawful before they ever put it forward.

They don't want to change the law. They want someone to stop them so they can ramp up a new round of "the unelected bureaucrats" shte. Because all this version of the Tories has ever had that worked was "enemies" to fight.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370547#Comment_121370547

That is a crazy metric - projected to win ~85% of the seats with less than 50% of the popular vote.

Just utter madness.

There goes any chance of getting away from FPTP in the UK anytime soon.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121371414#Comment_121371414

Not sure what poll this is, but if this is based on the poll with Reform at 11% and Conservatives on 19% then it is quite clearly just a nonsense poll.

Pete_Cavan

If Starmer forces his MPs to vote against calling for a ceasefire in Gaza then he could piss away a lot of public support very quickly.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370663#Comment_121370663

Sunak said he would "stop the boats" by the end of the year which he has failed to do, this will not go down well with the few voters they have left.

Moving Cleverly to the HO and bringing in Cameron is a slight shift back to the center for him but it's too little too late, he talked up the Rwanda deal for the last year and it has failed miserably while costing uk taxpayers £150 million.

His only hope now is to try and change laws or/and leave the ECHR which will not happen as any attempts will be tied up in courts for years.

I'll call it now and say Sunak will be gone by January 31st.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121371441#Comment_121371441

Indeed its unlikely to come true but based off that poll heres the electoral calculus results

Ignoring the polls data the idea that you could win that high a majority with less than 50% of the votes is just insanity.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121371574#Comment_121371574

The crazies in the party have enough power to get a vote of no confidence called, but I can't see one possibly succeeding.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121371576#Comment_121371576

yeah, well their electoral system is stupid. I've become unrelentingly annoyed with the name of it also, as its literally a misnomer. The proposed AV referendum was far more "first past the post" then this idiotic system.

Boggles

https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2023/1115/1416503-uk-rwanda/

None of the £140 million (€160m) that the UK has already paid to Rwanda can be clawed back as the new treaty is expected to add even more to the costs as negotiations are under way

Oh dear, folly is expensive.

Itssoeasy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372336#Comment_121372336

And sunak had said he’s willing to change UK law to stop small boats. Which does beg the question as to if he thinks that will stop the boats, then why didn’t he do that earlier ?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372344#Comment_121372344

I'd say it's a mix of incompetence, laziness and the realisation that they'd need to find another insipid culture war issue.

Boggles

He is under pressure from some Tory MPs to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and potentially other treaties, in order to push forward with the plan.

Suella Braverman, who was sacked as home secretary on Monday, has called for emergency legislation to "block off the ECHR and other routes of legal challenge".

Conservative Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson said the government should "ignore the laws" and send migrants back the same day they arrive in the UK.

I wonder is it time for Charles to step in and end this absolute nightmare.

Or can the King even still do that?

Itssoeasy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372398#Comment_121372398

A monarch can’t do that. The whole point of a king or queen at least in the uk sense is to be perform a few constitutional acts and not interfere in the commons.

Leroy42

The issue was never about stopping the boats or even sending people to Rwanda. The terms of the agreement meant that very few could be sent over, and there was reciprocity built in so it was never about numbers.

It was about the headlines. Can you imagine the headlines in the media when the planes started to take off? People would be ecstatic. There would be no mention of the costs of the deal, the costs of the flights, the costs of the legal challenges.

So Sunak has done today what they always do. Ignore what just happened and exclaim that 'laws will be changed'. So everyone, at least those interested in this, gets to dream of the next thing. This time it will work, you just need to believe.

This is, yet another, complete disaster from this government. A huge waste of time, of money and resources. The plan was doomed to fail from the very outset. Not just because of the legality of it, but the sheer costs.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372416#Comment_121372416

I'm pretty sure Kings in the past have dissolved parliament and refused to form another one for years.

The answer to the question whether Charles can do it, appears to be maybe.

Itssoeasy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372453#Comment_121372453

I don’t believe that any king or queen in recent memory has dissolved a parliament. Well there’s lot of thing a monarch technically can do but they don’t.