The Conservative Party

[lloydie]

Yes.

(perhaps if it turns out to be a bad thing, we look at a different system)

But the fact is, the current Government were elected with a strong majority - 80 seats. Yes they have messed up, multiple times, but part of the problem is this: when they have tried to enact the policies on which they were elected (control of laws/border/money) they have been blocked at every turn.

That is true. That makes me question the democratic system.

Might be news to you but you are a fascist.

 

[gill_undrhill]

Just to be clear where I am coming from, consider the Rwanda scheme.

In June 2022 there was a plane on the runway all set to go, but a legal challenge stopped it. It only had 7 passengers* but I ask this: how was it known about, so the ECHR could block it?

Instead of flying a charter flight from Gatwick, use the RAF. Fly 200 to Africa on a secret RAF transport plane, from a clandestine base. How will the ECHR stop that? how will the Supreme Court block that? Plus when the plane arrives, publicise it (TikTok might be most appropriate) so it becomes a deterrent.

This should have happened in June 2022 and this is what should happen in October 2023 and if it doesn't, the government should have a plan (b) - migrants entering illegally as per the illegal migrants bill should be processed abroad, e.g. St Georgia. If only to do one thing: to show that it is the elected government that are running things, not people who disagree with them.

*Not great from a climate change point of view.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Just to be clear where I am coming from, consider the Rwanda scheme.

In June 2022 there was a plane on the runway all set to go, but a legal challenge stopped it. It only had 7 passengers* but I ask this: how was it known about, so the ECHR could block it?

Instead of flying a charter flight from Gatwick, use the RAF. Fly 200 to Africa on a secret RAF transport plane, from a clandestine base. How will the ECHR stop that? how will the Supreme Court block that? Plus when the plane arrives, publicise it (TikTok might be most appropriate) so it becomes a deterrent.

This should have happened in June 2022 and this is what should happen in October 2023 and if it doesn't, the government should have a plan (b) - migrants entering illegally as per the illegal migrants bill should be processed abroad, e.g. St Georgia. If only to do one thing: to show that it is the elected government that are running things, not people who disagree with them.

*Not great from a climate change point of view.

Surely a wind-up.

Do you know why these things don’t work, because they are found to be illegal.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Or, are you saying that we force things through against all international conventions? Why not just get the Navy to sink the boats or have the Army patrolling beaches, bayonets ready?

 

[Vic]

Just to be clear where I am coming from, consider the Rwanda scheme.

In June 2022 there was a plane on the runway all set to go, but a legal challenge stopped it. It only had 7 passengers* but I ask this: how was it known about, so the ECHR could block it?

Instead of flying a charter flight from Gatwick, use the RAF. Fly 200 to Africa on a secret RAF transport plane, from a clandestine base. How will the ECHR stop that? how will the Supreme Court block that? Plus when the plane arrives, publicise it (TikTok might be most appropriate) so it becomes a deterrent.

This should have happened in June 2022 and this is what should happen in October 2023 and if it doesn't, the government should have a plan (b) - migrants entering illegally as per the illegal migrants bill should be processed abroad, e.g. St Georgia. If only to do one thing: to show that it is the elected government that are running things, not people who disagree with them.

*Not great from a climate change point of view.

That would be the Illegal Migration Act that you said they were blocked from enacting....

Anyone can go to court to say implementation of an act is unreasonable or unlawful. That's how the Tories stopped subsidised public transport fares that the law specifically permitted.

But for a minute there, I forgot you were wumming.

.

 

[oldius]

Yes.

(perhaps if it turns out to be a bad thing, we look at a different system)

But the fact is, the current Government were elected with a strong majority - 80 seats. Yes they have messed up, multiple times, but part of the problem is this: when they have tried to enact the policies on which they were elected (control of laws/border/money) they have been blocked at every turn.

That is true. That makes me question the democratic system.

It is only possible to block government action if the action is against the law.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

It is only possible to block government action if the action is against the law.

Then you have to use the ‘braverman principle’
You simply do away with the law.
Hoorah-’trebles all round’

 

[bluethrunthru]

Just to be clear where I am coming from, consider the Rwanda scheme.

In June 2022 there was a plane on the runway all set to go, but a legal challenge stopped it. It only had 7 passengers* but I ask this: how was it known about, so the ECHR could block it?

Instead of flying a charter flight from Gatwick, use the RAF. Fly 200 to Africa on a secret RAF transport plane, from a clandestine base. How will the ECHR stop that? how will the Supreme Court block that? Plus when the plane arrives, publicise it (TikTok might be most appropriate) so it becomes a deterrent.

This should have happened in June 2022 and this is what should happen in October 2023 and if it doesn't, the government should have a plan (b) - migrants entering illegally as per the illegal migrants bill should be processed abroad, e.g. St Georgia. If only to do one thing: to show that it is the elected government that are running things, not people who disagree with them.

*Not great from a climate change point of view.

zero thought or research from these wummers who come up with a magic bullet fantasy because they are not getting their way. Where the fuck is St Georgia btw? Doesn't exist unless in your mind its right next door to Xanadu

 

[BrianW]

So in 2025, when Keir Starmer tries to enact change, but he is blocked at every turn, will you be Ok with that?

We may as well not bother with elections and democracy if, as you say, "checks and balances are still working" - nothing will ever change!

1. He will not enact any significant change.

2. If he does, and is not proposing impracticable, inhumane and illegal measures, he will not be blocked.

Winning an election under our shitty FPTP electoral system does not and should not confer absolute power to do just as you like.

You would be much happier living under that utter thundercunt, Henry VIII. It was that sort of vile tyranny that checks and balances were put in place to prevent. Sadly many of those checks and balances are feeble and inadequate.

 

[BrianW]

Imagine a far-left Socialist government elected on 35% of the vote - it is possible to get a parliamentary majority with 35% under FPTP - with a 'mandate' to seize all personal wealth over £1 million and shoot anyone who objects. Along with anyone who can ever be proved to have voted Tory.

It's the 'will of the people' so it's OK, apparently.

I know it's an extreme case, but you have to put up extreme cases to explain why we build defences against tyranny. Even the tyranny of the so-called majority. Which under FPTP is hardly ever an actual majority.

 

[bluenova]

Just to be clear where I am coming from, consider the Rwanda scheme.

In June 2022 there was a plane on the runway all set to go, but a legal challenge stopped it. It only had 7 passengers* but I ask this: how was it known about, so the ECHR could block it?

Instead of flying a charter flight from Gatwick, use the RAF. Fly 200 to Africa on a secret RAF transport plane, from a clandestine base. How will the ECHR stop that? how will the Supreme Court block that? Plus when the plane arrives, publicise it (TikTok might be most appropriate) so it becomes a deterrent.

This should have happened in June 2022 and this is what should happen in October 2023 and if it doesn't, the government should have a plan (b) - migrants entering illegally as per the illegal migrants bill should be processed abroad, e.g. St Georgia. If only to do one thing: to show that it is the elected government that are running things, not people who disagree with them.

*Not great from a climate change point of view.

Why would the Government want to do anything secretly?

The Government is never going to send hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda. It wouldn't work in practice, and would turn out to be ridiculously expensive. The main point of the plan is for it to be stopped. It's meant to be in the news, and it's meant to make the govt look tough, while they actually do fuck all to fix the situation.

Most voters lives won't ever be materially effected by refugees, so spending the money to put together a proper system isn't of much use to the Tories. The easier option is to put forward endless new "initiatives" that are never going to work, but then blame their failure on someone else. It keeps the issue in the news and they can blame the opposition for the problems.

We recently had the Tories announcing a "small boats week". It was a fucking promotional event - a week of announcements - and that tells you all you need to know about what they are doing.