The Tories' latest 'gotcha' attempts seems to revolve around this story which is being pushed by the Mail, the Sun and GBeebies: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ells-CHILDRENs-holidays-illegal-migrants.html In their eyes, there's no difference between a group of teenagers going there on a 10 day supervised adventure holiday for a fortnight and a failed asylum seeker being forcibly sent there for life. Cries of 'hypocrisy!' seems to be their response. People would have to be morons to actually believe this tosh. I spent 2 weeks in Mexico in the summer on a package holiday and had a whale of a time with my wife and kids in tow. It doesn't mean I'd want to be forcibly deported to live there in a location of the Mexican authorities' choosing.
Not sure if the government will be too upset with that defeat. We all know that the Rwanda bill isn't going to work. So the government might be better off going in to the election saying "if it wasn't for those pesky unelected peers...." rather than seeing a tiny number of people being dragged, in chains, on to the planes, while many many more asylum seekers arrive every day on small boats. We all know how this government likes to blame everyone else, lefty lawyers, judges, ECHR etc, well now they have the HoL to add to the list and too many people will fall for it....again.
Not quite. At least yet. They've voted against ratifying the treaty the government has negotiated with Rwanda... but the vote has no binding force. Looks like Rishi and Cleverley can just send a statement to the Commons explaining why they intend to ratify it anyway and that overcomes the lost vote in the Lords. The bill is due up separately soon however and at the very least this vote indicates the way things are likely to go.
What, the very same HoL they’ve been stuffing with supporters in recognition of their contribution to society….err I mean Tory Party coffers?
Let's face it, when you're in power you'll likely bung supporters in the HoL however this peaked my interest so I've run a few back of envelope stats: In the last 50 years the Tories (plus Nick Clegg) have held power for just under 64% of the time. Current HoL allegiances according to Wikipedia are 269 Tory 174 Labour 35 & 23% resepctively. Given the Tories have spent nearly twice as long in power in my lifetime I'm suprised the bias is not more strong.
It's presumably because the Blair years enabled Labour to redress the balance big time and I suppose given the age demographic in that nursing home chamber means most of Thatcher's appointees have moved to the next upper house in the sky.
My main aim was to highlight the ‘inconsistency’ displayed in attempting to scapegoat the HoL for doing what the HoL is meant to do whilst simultaneously happily filling it with ‘paid up’ supporters. Would be interesting to see some kind of ‘qualatitive’ analysis of the 2 sides’ appointees.
Agreed I just thought it was an interesting stat. Personally I feel the HoL does offer an important function but I don't think the way it is filled is fit anymore. If you're going to have religious appointments then they need to be taken from a broad array of the religions for example. Maybe some sort of reform is needed. People could be elected from proposed shortlists of ex MPs, business & community leaders, services, public and private sector etc. I think it's just government recommendations and then vettings at the moment isn't it? Doesn't make sense to have the mecahanism used to keep politicians in check, recruited for by politicians.
This despicable hanger on voted with the Government, if any proof were needed as to how corrupt the Lords system is.
Don't worry, Moose. You can vote her out. That's the most important thing about democracy, apparently, and the frothing Brexiters who say that Brexit was all about preserving the sanctity of democracy must be absolutely livid that there's no way to remove these people who have a vote on our laws. I mean, they go on and on about it all the time. And it's really important to them. Really bloomin' important. Or it would be if their logic circuits worked.
The most fervent Brexiteers, outside of the wealthy, weren’t looking for more power for themselves. They think they are in some kind of pact with the Ruling Class, where there is a place for everyone (well them anyway) and everyone in their place. They were happy simply to prevent other people with similar wealth to them, but different views, from exercising political power. So yes, they don’t care about Charlotte Owen because, ha ha, the leftards and libtards.
Four Rwandans ‘granted refugee status in UK over fears of persecution’ | The Independent But I thought Rwanda was safe?
It's just a shortcut and easier than fighting in the courts to deny asylum. They'll be first on the list being sent to Rwanda. *note the above is in jest.
