egg Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Just now, a1ex2001 said: Come on explain it then honestly I’m happy to be convinced you are not wasting your time just explain it…. As simple as I can put it. The government made a decision. The SC said it was unlawful. The government have made another decision. The SC have yet to make any decision re that decision. Discussing this with someone who says that the SC undermining the government reeks of government intervention is about as pointless as it gets. I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 (edited) 17 minutes ago, egg said: As simple as I can put it. The government made a decision. The SC said it was unlawful. The government have made another decision. The SC have yet to make any decision re that decision. Discussing this with someone who says that the SC undermining the government reeks of government intervention is about as pointless as it gets. I'm out. The Supreme Court didn’t undermine the government they used available evidence and found that Rwanda wasn’t a safe country to send refugees too. The job of the Supreme Court isn’t to support the government it is to rule impartially on cases that come before it. I think the government are attempting to undermine the Supreme Court by declaring Rwanda safe by act of parliament when the Supreme Court said it wasn’t and I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary. I'm happy to debate that point in good faith, but equally if you don't want to that's your choice. Edited June 28 by a1ex2001 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 56 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said: Which countries would these be? All of them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 1 hour ago, a1ex2001 said: Except when the government of the day passes legislation forcing the SC to accept a position that isn’t true say for example that a country in Africa is a safe place to send refugees…. Then the SC clearly isn’t independent and has been told by the government what to do. Something not true of the ECHR. 18 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said: The Supreme Court didn’t undermine the government they used available evidence and found that Rwanda wasn’t a safe country to send refugees too. The job of the Supreme Court isn’t to support the government it is to rule impartially on cases that come before it. I think the government are attempting to undermine the Supreme Court by declaring Rwanda safe by act of parliament when the Supreme Court said it wasn’t and I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary. I'm happy to debate that point in good faith, but equally if you don't want to that's your choice. Looks like you've resolved your own argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said: All of them... No they pay into a scheme that relocates vulnerable potential asylum seekers from Lybia to Rwanda. None of those individuals have arrived in the EU and to claim asylum a totally different proposal to the UK scheme. Carry on making yourself look silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 49 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said: The Supreme Court found that Rwanda was not a safe place to send refugees, the government then passed legislation telling the Supreme Court that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees to. How is that anything other than direct government intervention in a SC finding? It’s not black or white, safe or not. There were specific reasons the SC ruled against the Government, and the Government therefore drafted legislation to address those concerns, which was passed by Parliament . Whether the legislation would satisfy the SC or not, will never be known because it won’t get tested in the courts due to an incoming Government dropping the scheme. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 (edited) 3 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said: No they pay into a scheme that relocates vulnerable potential asylum seekers from Lybia to Rwanda. None of those individuals have arrived in the EU and to claim asylum a totally different proposal to the UK scheme. Carry on making yourself look silly. And the policy with Turkey? The fact that they are sending refugees to Rwanda by the back door doesn't mean they aren't doing it! And why would they sanction sending "vulnerable" refugees to a country that isn't safe? Edited June 28 by Weston Super Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said: Looks like you've resolved your own argument. I think I must bot be being clear, our Supreme Court cannot be considered independent if a government enacts legislation to force it to accept a position it ruled against. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 1 minute ago, a1ex2001 said: I think I must bot be being clear, our Supreme Court cannot be considered independent if a government enacts legislation to force it to accept a position it ruled against. Have they done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 1 minute ago, a1ex2001 said: I think I must bot be being clear, our Supreme Court cannot be considered independent if a government enacts legislation to force it to accept a position it ruled against. Dear God….. The Government can legislate whatever the hell it wants, & if Parliament passes the act, it becomes law. The SC’s job is to decide whether that law is legal or not. It’s a complete separation of powers, so of course it’s fucking independent. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: And the policy with Turkey? The fact that they are sending refugees to Rwanda by the back door doesn't mean they aren't doing it! They are not deporting people who have arrived on their shores who they have an obligation under international treaties to process for asylum. It is totally different maybe as it’s voluntary for starters and run by the UNHCR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: Have they done that? As far as I can see yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 10 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Dear God….. The Government can legislate whatever the hell it wants, & if Parliament passes the act, it becomes law. The SC’s job is to decide whether that law is legal or not. It’s a complete separation of powers, so of course it’s fucking independent. Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one when the government essential passes a law telling the Supreme Court they got it wrong and nothing else then that isn’t separation of powers that is the government attempting to undermine the independent decision of the court. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: And the policy with Turkey? The fact that they are sending refugees to Rwanda by the back door doesn't mean they aren't doing it! And why would they sanction sending "vulnerable" refugees to a country that isn't safe? 22 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said: They are not deporting people who have arrived on their shores who they have an obligation under international treaties to process for asylum. It is totally different maybe as it’s voluntary for starters and run by the UNHCR! The UNHCR process moves asylum seekers from Libya to Rwanda whilst their applications for asylum in third countries are processed, as Libya has no internal capability to safely house and process them. Just over 5000 have been relocated temporarily, and all are expected to move to third countries rather than remain in Rwanda. Not sure about the Turkey reference, as all I can find is information about Turkey repatriationg some Syrian refugees back to Syria. Almost all of the refugees currently in Rwanda have entered the country overland to avoid conflict in neighbouring countries, including the DRC where Rwanda is actually engaged in armed intervention, which is one of the reasons people claim Rwanda is 'unsafe' - it is currently engaged in a cross border conflict. Edited June 28 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said: The UNHCR process moves asylum seekers from Libya to Rwanda whilst their applications for asylum in third countries are processed, as Libya has no internal capability to safely house and process them. Just over 5000 have been relocated temporarily, and all are expected to move to third countries rather than remain in Rwanda. Not sure about the Turkey reference, as all I can find is information about Turkey repatriationg some Syrian refugees back to Syria. Almost all of the refugees currently in Rwanda have entered the country overland to avoid conflict in neighbouring countries, including the DRC where Rwanda is actually engaged in armed intervention, which is one of the reasons people claim Rwanda is 'unsafe' - it is currently engaged in a cross border conflict. So there we go it is totally different to our governments planned one way ticket to Rwanda. Which is hideously flawed anyway as it covers about 300 (less than 1% of the yearly arrivals) small boat arrivals a year going to Rwanda with an as yet unknown number being sent in the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 14 hours ago, a1ex2001 said: Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one when the government essential passes a law telling the Supreme Court they got it wrong and nothing else then that isn’t separation of powers that is the government attempting to undermine the independent decision of the court. You can “agree to disagree” over an opinion, but not a fact. There is a separation of powers in this country. Any law passed doesn’t magically bypass the SC. Had there not been an election the legislation would have been tested in the courts, and would have ended up in The SC again. The legislation was drafted around the previous judgement, so the SC would be deciding whether provisions put in the new legislation made Rwanda safe enough to send people there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 5 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said: You can “agree to disagree” over an opinion, but not a fact. There is a separation of powers in this country. Any law passed doesn’t magically bypass the SC. Had there not been an election the legislation would have been tested in the courts, and would have ended up in The SC again. The legislation was drafted around the previous judgement, so the SC would be deciding whether provisions put in the new legislation made Rwanda safe enough to send people there. Text from the actual bill, that as far as I can see is directly instructing the court that is can’t find Rwanda to be generally unsafe, from where I’m sat that is the government interfering with the finding of the Supreme Court and attempting to prevent them making the same decision again simply because they didn’t like it. Maybe it’s different interpretations but that legislation is awful. Enabling Parliament to confirm that, with the new treaty, Rwanda is safe. Requiring decision makers and courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as generally safe, when making decisions, or hearing claims about decisions relating to the removal of a person to Rwanda. Preventing domestic courts and tribunals from hearing cases or granting interim remedies on matters relating only to general safety of Rwanda. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 23 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said: Text from the actual bill, that as far as I can see is directly instructing the court that is can’t find Rwanda to be generally unsafe, from where I’m sat that is the government interfering with the finding of the Supreme Court and attempting to prevent them making the same decision again simply because they didn’t like it. Maybe it’s different interpretations but that legislation is awful. Enabling Parliament to confirm that, with the new treaty, Rwanda is safe. Requiring decision makers and courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as generally safe, when making decisions, or hearing claims about decisions relating to the removal of a person to Rwanda. Preventing domestic courts and tribunals from hearing cases or granting interim remedies on matters relating only to general safety of Rwanda. It still requires testing in Court. Simply because the Government says something is legal does not make it so. The SC, in all probability, will end up being asked to rule on this Bill, and may well find it stands up to scrutiny, but that will not be because a Minister had instructed the Judges to say so. Edited June 29 by badgerx16 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 More ineptitude. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/29/disbelief-as-us-uk-trade-deals-under-threat-after-britain-axes-negotiators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Challenger Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said: The return of Michael Foot and Maggie Thatcher. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 The future of the Tory party? https://amp.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/jun/30/tory-student-group-condemned-over-video-shows-them-singing-to-nazi-song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloucester Saint Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) Come on SW Norfolk, give us a Portillo moment on steroids. The whole country, and even most Tory MPs, bar the loony swivels in the membership, would take the roof off in celebration at Truss getting defeated https://thecritic.co.uk/going-on-a-truss-hunt/ Still not sure it will happen despite the recent MRP polls. Edited July 1 by Gloucester Saint 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said: Come on SW Norfolk, give us a Portillo moment on steroids. The whole country, and even most Tory MPs, bar the loony swivels in the membership, would take the roof off in celebration at Truss getting defeated https://thecritic.co.uk/going-on-a-truss-hunt/ Still not sure it will happen despite the recent MRP polls. I was looking at this earlier today, according to the bookies she looks like she could lose her seat. Labour are odds on, mad lady is evens at very best. She would absolutely be prime Portillo moment, deluded to the very last. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 It’s a shame the main parties don’t have the guts to trust what the public want. Labour are terrified of mentioning tax rises and the Tories are selling more tax cuts, yet most sensible people understand that we have to pay for better services and that money has to come from somewhere. Economic growth is fine if and when it happens, but it will take an age before it kicks in enough to raise the funds needed. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/01/twice-as-many-britons-want-tax-rises-as-want-cuts-survey-finds 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) 43 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: It’s a shame the main parties don’t have the guts to trust what the public want. Labour are terrified of mentioning tax rises and the Tories are selling more tax cuts, yet most sensible people understand that we have to pay for better services and that money has to come from somewhere. Why is the conversation always about "more" money rather than spending the existing levels (or lower) more wisely and efficiently than it currently is...? Case in point.... The nasty Tories have raised spending on the NHS to record levels (as a percentage of GDP) and yet it's still rubbish in many areas of its operation and delivery. Surely the Labour Party (for example) can run it much better than the Tories using the same record budget levels....? Edited July 2 by trousers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 24 minutes ago, trousers said: Why is the conversation always about "more" money rather than spending the existing levels (or lower) more wisely and efficiently than it currently is...? Case in point.... The nasty Tories have raised spending on the NHS to record levels (as a percentage of GDP) and yet it's still rubbish in many areas of its operation and delivery. Surely the Labour Party (for example) can run it much better than the Tories using the same record budget levels....? As a society there are more and more of us who are elderly or have chronic conditions, so there's more for the NHS to cope with 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 25 minutes ago, trousers said: Why is the conversation always about "more" money rather than spending the existing levels (or lower) more wisely and efficiently than it currently is...? Case in point.... The nasty Tories have raised spending on the NHS to record levels (as a percentage of GDP) and yet it's still rubbish in many areas of its operation and delivery. Surely the Labour Party (for example) can run it much better than the Tories using the same record budget levels....? Because costs have risen substantially over the last few years so spending needs to increase exponentially, but Labour have also said that they will spend money more judiciously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Danbert said: As a society there are more and more of us who are elderly or have chronic conditions, so there's more for the NHS to cope with Maybe we should get the richer people in the country to co-fund part of their healthcare via some kind of 'free at the point of use' + 'health insurance scheme' hybrid arrangement...? Edited July 2 by trousers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 I can't remember an election where one of the big two has just given up and thrown the towel in. Last week it was all about not surrendering, this week the only priority for the Tories seems to be avoiding wipeout and a "super majority". Last night I saw Steve Baker basically pleading for votes so they could be a more effective opposition. To be honest I'm not sure this drive for sympathy votes is going to do much good - I can see a lot of Tory voters who will just think what's the point and not bother. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) Now the attack line is that Starmer wants to spend time with his family. Yeah that will put off so many voters Edited July 2 by whelk 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 6 minutes ago, whelk said: Now the attack line is that Starmer wants to spend time with his family. Yeah that will put off so many voters Yeah but what if we have a nuclear attack and it's 6.10PM and Starmer is off playing with his kids eh? What's going to happen then? We could be all dead by morning but does Starmer care? Does he fuck! As long as he spends some quality time with his kids then the rest of us can go to hell. Dunno about anyone else but when I elect a prime minister I want them working morning, noon and night every day of every year. I want to see that prime minister age before my very eyes because if they're not going prematurely grey/bald/hunched/short sighted/demented then they're not working hard enough. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 This is for you Batman. One of the very many media articles about the effect that Reform is having on the Tory vote. It would be strange not to comment on it on a thread about the election would it not? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/02/sunak-most-tory-seat-reform-canvey-island-essex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 13 minutes ago, whelk said: Now the attack line is that Starmer wants to spend time with his family. Yeah that will put off so many voters Nick Ferrari made a big deal about it in his interview with Wes Streeting this morning. I wonder if he just forgot that “Dave” Cameron said that he would make time for a date night with his wife every week when he was PM. Jumped on by the Tory press too. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Sunak's campaign strategy people have had an absolute shocker from start to finish. What shall we do today, stand outside in a thunderstorm, tell veterans to fuck off, make up a meat tax, stand in front of a Titanic sign or attack Starmer for sounding like a family man? Seriously, that party needs an enquiry into who has been calling the shots. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 1 hour ago, trousers said: Maybe we should get the richer people in the country to co-fund part of their healthcare via some kind of 'free at the point of use' + 'health insurance scheme' hybrid arrangement...? Take at look at the Kings Fund or Nuffield research on this. Americas health care efficiency is lower than hours, they waste billions of dollars in payment processes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 The knocking off at 6pm stuff, surely in a month or so time, Shapps and co will have a moment where it hits home how embarrassing they were. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 The Tories are being told off for being antisemitic https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/tories-jewish-prime-minister-wes-streeting-john-mann-b2572420.html by their own independent adviser on antisemitism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 37 minutes ago, rallyboy said: Sunak's campaign strategy people have had an absolute shocker from start to finish. What shall we do today, stand outside in a thunderstorm, tell veterans to fuck off, make up a meat tax, stand in front of a Titanic sign or attack Starmer for sounding like a family man? Seriously, that party needs an enquiry into who has been calling the shots. It is so desperate you almost suspect saboteurs amongst them. Will no doubt be a case study for what not to do 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) On a separate note I like Ed Davey. He seems fun Edited July 2 by whelk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 23 minutes ago, whelk said: On a separate note I like Ed Davey. He seems fun He's had an absolute bumper time of the last 6 weeks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 44 minutes ago, whelk said: On a separate note I like Ed Davey. He seems fun I did wonder about all of the crazy stunts but he pointed out that it was all about bringing attention to the party and their policies and it has certainly worked. I used to think that he was a bit of a non entity but he comes across as a decent, down to earth bloke and to see him with his disabled son can only restore your faith in the humanity of some of our politicians. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, Fan The Flames said: The knocking off at 6pm stuff, surely in a month or so time, Shapps and co will have a moment where it hits home how embarrassing they were. Maria Caulfield, Tory junior Minister, said on SKY News that by knocking off at 6 on Friday evening Starmer was reducing the job of PM to a 4 day week. They are just spouting bollox on the fly, especially considering last week Sunak said Starmer's wanting to keep Friday evening for his family was an admirable thing. Loved Wes Streating's response to her, saying that just like the cleaners in number 10 after the lockdown parties, Labour were ready to clean up the Tories' vomit. Edited July 2 by badgerx16 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes_and_Watson Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 5 hours ago, trousers said: Maybe we should get the richer people in the country to co-fund part of their healthcare via some kind of 'free at the point of use' + 'health insurance scheme' hybrid arrangement...? If your elephant has worms, take it to the vet, Trousers! No wonder the NHS struggles, with you always taking your pachyderms to A&E. 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Challenger Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 23 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: If your elephant has worms, take it to the vet, Trousers! No wonder the NHS struggles, with you always taking your pachyderms to A&E. 🙂 You can just imagine some underpaid junior doctor, just finishing a 72 hour shift, clad in useless ex COVID PPE about to probe an ill elephant,s arse with a stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Don't let the general election distract you from the fact that in 2001 Kurt Angle hosed the Alliance with milk on Monday Night Raw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 1 minute ago, Lighthouse said: Don't let the general election distract you from the fact that in 2001 Kurt Angle hosed the Alliance with milk on Monday Night Raw. That's niche randomness if ever there was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 11 hours ago, trousers said: Why is the conversation always about "more" money rather than spending the existing levels (or lower) more wisely and efficiently than it currently is...? Case in point.... The nasty Tories have raised spending on the NHS to record levels (as a percentage of GDP) and yet it's still rubbish in many areas of its operation and delivery. Surely the Labour Party (for example) can run it much better than the Tories using the same record budget levels....? Because our spending on healthcare is well behind that of similar countries who shock horror have better healthcare services. It really isn’t rocket science if you want the NHS to be world beating it needs to at least get close to world beating money! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 8 hours ago, whelk said: On a separate note I like Ed Davey. He seems fun And incredibly on Friday morning could be leader of the opposition! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) 9 hours ago, Fan The Flames said: Take at look at the Kings Fund or Nuffield research on this. Americas health care efficiency is lower than hours, they waste billions of dollars in payment processes. 22 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said: Because our spending on healthcare is well behind that of similar countries who shock horror have better healthcare services. It really isn’t rocket science if you want the NHS to be world beating it needs to at least get close to world beating money! Which countries are considered to be in the top 3 for public healthcare, and what funding method(s) do they each use? (Genuine question as I have no idea and genuinely interested) Edited July 2 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now