Rishi Sunak

[bluethrunthru]

 

[bluethrunthru]

Dear Rishi

You have fucked up big time

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Gimp. Rich, but a gimp nonetheless.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Angela Rayner I’ve already said Starmer has a good team of people around him Rachel Reeve (BOE) Evette Cooper immigration.

 

[johnnytapia]

Thatchers scope of vision was her making but also her undoing. No British leader has ever squandered more. If she’d had grace and humility, the nation would have prospered from her ‘victory’, but she was too consumed by enmity to do the right thing. She really missed an opportunity there to bring the nation together.

A bad winner is even worse than a bad loser.

Thatcher was kicking into an empty net.
And once she realised it was empty, she kept on kicking.
In ‘79 she was restrained by thoughts that she might have to fight an election against a reasonably capable opponent at the next election. Once the scales had fallen from her eyes, she went full-scale “Thatcherism” and pushed against an open door.
Blair did the same in ‘97 and ‘01.
Were either “visionary” in the Roosevelt “New Deal” / Attlee ‘45 sense? Not for me. Both were “visionary “ in that the preceding years allowed / forced them to be.

 

[johnnytapia]

Dear Rishi

You have fucked up big time

Sorry but that’s akin to the old days of a strike being called on a show of hands.
If the same people in the audience were given a genuinely anonymous ballot, bet your bottom dollar several dozen would vote in favour of the policy.
A forced show of hands is, was and always will be politically meaningless.
The Rwanda policy is absolute bollocks. As was this piece of television

 

[BrianW]

I can't believe that anyone who has read the fine print of the Rwanda deal would support it.

It's a clear case of: 'Something must be done, this is something, let's do it.' As mad a scheme as has ever been laid before Parliament.

Even the most bigoted racist should oppose it. It merely exchanges one lot of brown people for another at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. The only conceivable argument in its favour is that it is a 'deterrent' but the chance of being sent to Rwanda is so small it even fails on that.

 

[dave_blue12]

Sorry but that’s akin to the old days of a strike being called on a show of hands.
If the same people in the audience were given a genuinely anonymous ballot, bet your bottom dollar several dozen would vote in favour of the policy.
A forced show of hands is, was and always will be politically meaningless.
The Rwanda policy is absolute bollocks. As was this piece of television

I disagree. Anyone bothering to get themselves onto a QT audience is going to stand up for what they believe.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence from any side of the political spectrum knows the Rwanda scheme is complete nonsense.

 

[johnnytapia]

I disagree. Anyone bothering to get themselves onto a QT audience is going to stand up for what they believe.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence from any side of the political spectrum knows the Rwanda scheme is complete nonsense.

Fully agree with second paragraph but politely disagree with first. I’m certain there would have been people within that audience who fully support this nonsense.
Guess we’ll never know though. Ta

 

[TinFoilHat]

Appeasing fascists today. They are really scared of Reform killing them off next GE