Rwanda

Riverwalk

Was that not offered by the French some years' ago?

Since Brexit? Yes.

It makes so much sense.

Whitewavemark2

The mayor of Calais and the French foreign secretary have both proposed that Westminster set up a refugee processing post in the North of France.

This would cost a fraction of the ridiculous Rwanda plan and would be much more effective.

No reply from Patel or Johnson.

This has been suggested many times. Our government seems stuck in some kind of little island mentality. We aren’t in the EU but we are in Europe - geographically.

I missed urmston’ so post. If it was deleted, there will have been a reason. I usually disagree with urm on politics, occasionally if find your views a bit white supremacist urms, I believe you’ve every right to express views I find repellent and sometimes I’m entertained by, others offended. Racism though - not ok and I’m assuming that was the reason for deletion.
Suspension?

Kandinsky and Maudi - this forum isn’t dominated by loony lefties as yiu appear to believe. Many posters enjoy debating with people who don’t share their politics but may share a balanced and compassionate world view

I didn’t see UGs post for obvious reasons (?‍⚕️?but for those getting upset at a Suspension might I point out several posters have had temporary bans possibly for far less contentious posts and lived to tell the tale.

Whitewavemark2

The mayor of Calais and the French foreign secretary have both proposed that Westminster set up a refugee processing post in the North of France.

This would cost a fraction of the ridiculous Rwanda plan and would be much more effective.

No reply from Patel or Johnson.

Why won’t they listen ?????

Lucca

Whitewavemark2

The mayor of Calais and the French foreign secretary have both proposed that Westminster set up a refugee processing post in the North of France.

This would cost a fraction of the ridiculous Rwanda plan and would be much more effective.

No reply from Patel or Johnson.

Why won’t they listen ?????

Because they won't accept anything from the evil enemy, the EU. They're only interested in picking fights with the EU so as to show their Brexity voters how very nasty the EU is and how brave the government is to stand up to their bullying.

Co-operating over asylum seekers doesn't fit the image...

Lucca

I didn’t see UGs post for obvious reasons (?‍⚕️?but for those getting upset at a Suspension might I point out several posters have had temporary bans possibly for far less contentious posts and lived to tell the tale.

Yes, that's true.

A week on the naughty step gives time for reflection or indignation.

Lucca

Whitewavemark2

The mayor of Calais and the French foreign secretary have both proposed that Westminster set up a refugee processing post in the North of France.

This would cost a fraction of the ridiculous Rwanda plan and would be much more effective.

No reply from Patel or Johnson.

Why won’t they listen ?????

Because every decision they make is based on their political future and not the good of the electorate.

Why won't they listen?

Two words: Lynton Crosby.

This from Peter Oborne:

www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-johnson-turning-britain-global-pariah

… the scene in Downing Street earlier this month, as an alarmed Prime Minister Boris Johnson receives news that Tory MPs have launched a mutiny. With his leadership in peril, he summons his trusted advisers.By far the most powerful and respected is legendary political strategist Crosby - the magician who won {Australian PM John] Howard four victories, then twice commanded the strategy team that swept Johnson to power in the London mayoral elections. Most recently, he helped propel Johnson to victory over Labour in the 2019 general election.

Crosby’s techniques are effective, but ugly. He is a master of so-called wedge issues that divide national opinion. These issues are designed to galvanise working-class voters who traditionally vote for leftwing parties, while paralysing the leaderships of those same leftwing parties.

The most divisive wedge issue is asylum seekers, as Crosby cleverly spotted in Australia two decades ago.

At that panicky Downing Street meeting earlier this month, there’s little doubt that Crosby would have advised Johnson to change the conversation from the debilitating daily disclosures about prime ministerial sleaze and deceit, and to focus on one of the “wedge issues” that have worked so well for his clients in the past.

So it wasn’t a coincidence that a few days after their meeting, Home Secretary Priti Patel’s floundering plan to export asylum seekers to Rwanda was revived with a vengeance. According to the Spectator: “Johnson’s deputy chief of staff David Canzini, looking ahead to the next general election, has heralded the Rwanda plan as an ideal wedge issue. Aides have been ordered to find more policies in their departments that divide the opposition.”

Well, it's probably worked in a way. It's polarised public opinion, although polls seem to suggest the "majority" support Johnson and Patel.

Strong opinions are held, both ways, and it's dragged the discussion away from Partygate/sleaze etc.

Meanwhile, Labour wobble about on the fence, saying they want to stop the traffickers, and control our borders, but not saying how they would do that.

But, they also say the Rwanda idea is a bad one.

Trying to say the "right thing" to appease two sides of an argument never works.

The Tories did the same with "what is a woman". - Johnson saw what the majority were expressing, and came out with what he thought.

Starmer wobbled, fluffed, puffed and found it hard to say, because, again, he was worried about upsetting either side.

Labour need to come up with ideas, say what they would do, or they will never be elected.

Callistemon21

If it was unlawful then understandably it was deleted.

But a ban?

Yes, seems very OTT, although I didn't see the post.

Most sites would just remove the post, and/or lock the thread.

I don't agree with anything Urn says, politically, but I wouldn't report anyone or want anyone banned because i disagreed with them...?.

Debate is healthy and interesting - an echo chamber is just boring.

But, sites make their own rules and it's up to them I suppose.

If Labour were to propose a workable plan the tories would promptly nick it and then Johnson would claim that Labour had always opposed that selfsame plan.

DiamondLily

Callistemon21

If it was unlawful then understandably it was deleted.

But a ban?

Yes, seems very OTT, although I didn't see the post.

Most sites would just remove the post, and/or lock the thread.

I don't agree with anything Urn says, politically, but I wouldn't report anyone or want anyone banned because i disagreed with them...?.

Debate is healthy and interesting - an echo chamber is just boring.

But, sites make their own rules and it's up to them I suppose.

I think a ban is usually the result of what the mods perceive to be persistent offending. The poster in question has a history.

Yes, but the Tories are using Labour's indecision about what to do, as a stick to beat them with.?

People don't get banned or suspended for writing something someone else disagrees with. They get banned or suspended for regularly posting things that are illegal or otherwise against GN rules, and not desisting when they are told about their rule breaking.

That's the nature of politics, isn't it? Any stick will do.

Tories are currently running a series of social media ads featuring Labour refusal to condemn the forthcoming rail strikes, despite the fact that no-one in their right minds would expect Labour to condemn them. They'd have run derogatory ads if Labour had supported the strikes and, if Labour had condemned them, the tories would have run ads saying that Labour didn't care about working people... I'm not sure what a party is supposed to do in those circumstances.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Question Time audience member last night: Labour have no policies.

Thangam Debonnaire lists half a dozen policies.

Same audience member: But Labour have no policies.

DiamondLily

Yes, but the Tories are using Labour's indecision about what to do, as a stick to beat them with.?

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the opposition only had to come up with alternative plans to government policies when they wrote their manifesto. I thought the opposition was there to oppose ( or, at times of crisis eg covid to support when necessary) the government. Also Labour would be able to have a working relationship with European countries when it came to refugees etc because they don’t prefer to stir up hate against our European neighbours. Yvette Cooper, when interviewed yesterday did point out what Labour would do to resolve the situation but it wasn’t headline grabbing in any way.

Yes, but I think Starmer is being called out as someone that criticises the government (rightly), but when Johnson turns the question around (as he always does), as to what Starmer would do, he's left floundering a bit.

I know concrete plans are for a manifesto, but in order to get back traditional Labour and other voters (who voted Tory last time), Labour do need to lay out their direction of travel.

Diamond lily. Can I just point out my post yesterday 21.52?
Posters have been temporarily banned several times (for less)and got over it

volver

Question Time audience member last night: Labour have no policies.

Thangam Debonnaire lists half a dozen policies.

Same audience member: But Labour have no policies.

This.
I suspect that audience member was a plant, her job to repeat the nonsense that Labour has no plan. My fear is she’s a momentum supporter, not even a tory

I know concrete plans are for a manifesto, but in order to get back traditional Labour and other voters (who voted Tory last time), Labour do need to lay out their direction of travel.

Have you tried looking on their official website, DiamondLily?

I know it's a bit naff sounding, but try 'Stronger Together'.

I gave up on QT after 5 minutes. It had started to be watchable again. I saw a young girls question being ignored (not sure if they did, as promised, come back to it later) then saw someone say what a great job Johnson was doing under the circumstances ( ie no one could have foreseen the pandemic) at which point I switched off. Watched various WhoDo You Think You Ares’ which tend to focus onracism, xenophobia and talk of processing people and upset me greatly realising that we still haven’t learned from the past. It doesn’t take much for us to become the people being processed. (I’m so beginning to loathe that word).

Russ Jones on Rwanda

A number of things have subtly changed since the Rwanda plan was first announced by Priti Patel, a smirking, razor-faced ghoul with all the warmth and tenderness of a Klingon backstreet abortionist. I will now describe them...

Patel had promised she’d only deport asylum seekers after they’d been vetted by an independent watchdog

The watchdog hasn’t been set up

She had promised children would not be deported to Rwanda

Her policy treats children the same as adults

She had promised people would be processed in Rwanda and, if accepted, could return to the UK

Deportees can’t return to the UK under any circumstances

And in April she promised “tens of thousands” would be resettled. Oh is that right, Priti?

By May the promise had dropped from tens of thousands to “about 300”, and at that rate it would take Patel 34 years to meet her original target

Then the promised number of deportations dropped to 50

Then to 30

Then to “fewer than 10”

A govt source said “we will operate the flight even if there is just 1 person on it”

Patel said the policy was “about securing value for money”

She paid Rwanda £120 million, hired a jet at £500,000, and by this week was deporting just 7 people

Patel said the policy “would act as a deterrent to people crossing the channel”

The day she announced the deterrent, 116 crossed the channel in boats

On Tuesday 260 people crossed, an increase of 124%. Excellent deterring, Priti!

Ethereally wrong Thatcher cosplayer Liz Truss said people criticising the policy hadn’t suggested any alternatives

The UN said this was “categorically untrue”, and they'd offered “many, many suggestions”

The UN said UK policy “violates fundamental principles”

The Church of England said the policy is “against God’s laws”

So ministers talked openly about expelling bishops from the House of Lords

And then Prince Charles called the policy “appalling”, so monarchist Tory columnists began talking about scrapping the monarchy
It’s all terribly, terribly sane

In the end we deported exactly (let me check my maths) zero people for our £120 million, because the European Court of Human Rights – which Churchill helped to set up – stopped the flight