Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Jul 06 17:06:02 2022

Utopia Talk / Politics / UK deportin negros 2 afrika cry seb
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid
Member
Tue Jun 14 10:24:44
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61799914

Rwanda asylum plan: PM defends scheme as legal challenges fail

Boris Johnson has defended plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda as three men due to be on the first flight failed in their bids to avoid being removed.

Up to eight people are due to be on Tuesday evening's flight but appeals against removal are being heard.

The PM said he had always known the scheme would attract "plenty of legal challenges" and said the government may "very well" need to change the law.

The Church of England and human rights groups have criticised the plan.

Mr Johnson said he had long believed the scheme was a "long process" with potential bumps in the road.

The cases lodged on behalf of people set to be flown to the east African nation's capital Kigali will be heard before the flight departs, after a last-ditch attempt to block the flight altogether was rejected by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

This judgement was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Three men have failed in their bids at the High Court not to be removed from the UK to Rwanda on Tuesday, while another legal challenge is ongoing.

One man who is due to be on the flight told the BBC he would "prefer to die" than be sent to Rwanda.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jun 14 21:36:50
Seb should be happy. Fewer murders and rapes in his country.
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 15 02:53:12
So every single person on the first flight successfully appealed, the ECHR issued an emergency injunction.

Amongst the people to be deported are Afghan interpreters we left to the Taliban, an Iranian police commander tortured for refusing to shoot protestors and many others with strong cases.

Its not hard to see why Sam wants these people to be shot. They have the moral courage he lacks, so he naturally calls them rapists to deflect from his own shameful cowardice and bigotry.
murder
Member
Wed Jun 15 03:53:45

Why were these people being deported in the first place?

Seb
Member
Wed Jun 15 04:15:18
There are people that have a legitimate reason to want to seek asylum in the UK (family or other connection, easier for them to integrate).

We've made it impossible to claim asylum in the UK in a way compliant with civil law.

You can only make a claim in the UK, but you can't enter the UK to make the claim.

Essentially we are only open to resettlement cases, and we take a tiny fraction (on a per capita basis) compared to other countries.

So if you enter by crossing the channel, you now get automatically deported to Rwanda and declared automatically ineligible for refugee status in the UK.

Note this scheme is illegal on a number of fronts as contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights and obligations under the refugee convention etc.

Seb
Member
Wed Jun 15 04:17:25
N.b. this isn't the Australian scheme, where you are processed in a distant Island.

It is an entirely new scheme: irrespective of where you are from, we fly you to African country with dubious human rights record and dump you there to either sort yourself out or be processed by Rwanda's asylum scheme.
murder
Member
Wed Jun 15 04:43:45

How is that not an international scandal?

Is it safe to assume that Boris Johnson is behind it?

OsamaIsDaWorstPresid
Member
Wed Jun 15 05:19:54
rofl rite on2 da next plane

http://met...-one-halted-by-judge-16829773/

Priti Patel vows to continue with Rwanda flights plan despite judges stopping first one

Despite last night’s disruption, Patel said preparation for the next deportation flight ‘begins now’ and that she will ‘not be deterred from doing the right thing’.

Ms Patel described the intervention as ‘very surprising’, adding that ‘many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next’.
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 15 05:20:37
It is an international standard, and yes Johnson and Patel are behind it.

Essentially while we were in the EU, we were part of something called Dublin II - an European scheme that meant you were processed by "first safe country" participating in the scheme.

This is also somewhat dubious, but at least you are deporting someone back to a country they actually travelled through, and in a common legal framework etc.

Obviously, France was going to want huge concessions for the UK to remain in Dublin II when not a member of the EU. So Johnson didn't ask for it.

But, they also have people like bargain bin basement Fascist Nigel Farrage running around saying "look, they are putting boat people in hotels!" (and also the media pointing at all the people drowning). And they don't want to admit that the EU membership let the UK control its border better than they can now control it having left - and that as the remain campaign said, leaving the EU would actually make it harder to control people entering the country - because that would mean admitting they lied about that too.

So they have come up with this scheme, which is a bit like what Israel and Denmark both tried and failed to do with Rwanada: pay Rwanda to run an offshore processing centre for them.

Only it's not a processing centre - you get deported there, become ineligible for UK asylum, and you can apply for asylum in Rwanda under Rwandas system. The govt repeatedly lies about this, but the actual law and treaty is very clear on the point.

This govt lies like normal people breathe.

As for international scandal, well, it is, but it's just another drop in the ocean of UK international scandals.



Seb
Member
Wed Jun 15 05:21:30
OItWP:

Yeah, well, she did so well with the first flight it stands to reason the second flight will go much better because...
Paramount
Member
Wed Jun 15 12:39:03
” How is that not an international scandal? ”

Why would it be? It’s only a scandal if, say, Russia, China or someone else who the english-speaking dislike would do something like this.

Israel is shipping migrants to Africa. Australia is shipping migrants to a prison camp on a remote island where people have been tortured, sexual abused and killed. The US is putting migrant children in cages, separating children from their parents. The UK should also be able to do this. Why not?
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 15 17:55:21
Paramount:

You say that but it is total bollocks.

Australia and Israel were both hugely criticised for this.

US was hugely criticised for this.

And right now the UK is also being hugely criticised for this.

Seb
Member
Wed Jun 15 17:55:45
And by criticised I mean by other governments, international organisations, and governance bodies.
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 15 17:56:23
This whole default insinuation of double standards gets really tired and boring when it is so demonstrably false.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jun 16 01:10:50
So? People (mostly leftist) complains a little bit for a while, and then everyone moves on.

Israel is still shipping migrants to Africa. Australia still has that camp on the island. And the UK is going to ship migrants to Africa despite criticism.


From NYTimes:

Priti Patel: “We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders. Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.”

””Although Britain is no longer a member of the European Union, it is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore accepts judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, which is based in Strasbourg, France.”


^ The solution Patel is looking for is to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.


”This whole default insinuation of double standards gets really tired and boring when it is so demonstrably false.”

I might stop insinuating double standards when Western and pro-Western countries face similar consequences as non-Western countries do when they violate human rights.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 01:41:16
Paramount:

Actually, the exposure of the Israeli scheme caused it to collapse and the had to stop.

The UK won't leave the ECHR - it's a requirement of the GFA.

What are the "similar consequences" here?

For example, you compare to China. What consequences has China faced for its ethnic cleansing of Uighurs?

Which other country that's been doing dodgy deportation has faced consequences that you feel Western countries have not?
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 03:10:27
This is what I mean - the Israeli scheme was abandoned in 2018 iirc.

You just assume that it's still going, like you assume there's no condemnation, to justify this reflexive cynicism which is ultimately self defeating.

Low key pass agg based on assumptions the issue wasn't addressed that you didn't even bother to check, is far less effective than celebrating the wins.

Deporting people to Africa has been tried by Israel and Denmark - both schemes were proven inhumane, unworkable, illegal and ruinously expensive and collapsed.

So it is unfathomable why the UK govt would try it for any other reason than the PR value.

And why does it have PR value?

Because actually everyone talked about the Israeli and Denmark schemes, and nobody covered the fact they collapsed under their own inhumanity and contradictions.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 16 04:09:56
What a shit realization, the reason for why things are broken is because the people in charge have made the same level of research as Paramount.

Reminds me of a coversation I has with a friend many years ago and the basis for his argument, nay his entire world views was that, the people who are in charge are intelligent and competent people, who know what they are doing. Tsk sweet child.

Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 04:28:08
Nim:

No, not at all. They know it will fail, and they actually - I think - wanted it to fail.

You remember I told you this government was fairly unique in that it is constantly seeking to divide the population and stoke outrage as a means for shoring up the base?

1. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, but the govt and political outriders are briefing it as "not having completed brexit".

2. Raab, the current Justice Secretary, and many others, have long targeted the ECHR as a thing they want us to withdraw from because "human rights are bad ok" - or rather they know that part of their base *wants* performatively cruel policies to groups they see as undeserving: refugees and migrants being a classic group. Cf. Hostile Environment that resulted in a bunch of black brits born in the UK being deported in their 60's and 70's to Caribbean countries because the only evidence that shows their parents were legally in the UK were documents that Home Office decided to shred.

Understand this Nim, for a certain part of the population, this shit is popular; because they are convinced all migrants are scum.

3. The policy has been floated before and abandoned repeatedly because of advice to ministers from civil servants that it is unworkable and illegal. The current scheme was instituted after a direction was given. A direction is a written letter from the minister to the permenant secretary (who is what we call "the accounting officer") the one formally accountable to parliament for proper use of taxpayers money that is a formal statement that the minister has heard the advice of the civil servant that some thing the govt is doing is against advice (not value for money, excessive risk etc.) but that the formal decision of the govt is to go ahead despite the advice of the accounting officer, thus relieving them of responsibility when the scheme blows up.

So we know that the ministers involved ought to know the scheme is unworkable.

4. Stoking a cycle of outrage at judges etc. is great for the govt. Partygate split their vote and trying to shore it up with a brexity row and bashing refugees is a great way to do that.

5. There are leaks suggesting that this was exactly their thinking:
http://www...ded-the-rwanda-flight-take-off

"As a source close to government thinking put it: “The point of the exercise was to create dividing lines ahead of the next election.”

This government is an abomination - utterly uninterested in actually governing, entirely focused on political gimmicks designed to divide the country and keep themselves in power simply because they enjoy the status of it.

They do not view governance as public duty, only as a badge of status.

----

Fun fact: 60% of channel migrants end up meeting even the UK's ridiculously stringent definitions of a refugee. If we want to stop channel deaths, we could just have a fucking home office processing centre in Calais; or let them cross the channel and apply in the UK.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 04:34:26
An example of how the conservatives regularly misrepresent human rights in general an the EHRC as a way to avoid having to explain why superficially popular "just send em all back where they came from" policies are immoral and unjust.

Theresa May attacked a fellow minister (Ken Clarke) because the courts "ruled a man could not be deported because he had a cat".

In actual fact the cat was cited as evidence that his relationship with someone he was married to was not a sham marriage. She locked onto the cat, totally misrepresented it?

Why? Because "deport them all" is a vote winner, "actually we can't deport them all because most of the ones we let through are actually legitimate cases" isn't a vote winner. They would rather have the issue, and continue to pretend that the people they can't legally deport are underserving people that should rightly be punished and ejected by instead making human rights out to be the issue.



Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 16 05:39:56
"You remember I told you this government was fairly unique in that it is constantly seeking to divide the population and stoke outrage as a means for shoring up the base?"

I do, I just never believed this was the entire truth, I take it as the opinions of someone in opposition. I hear the same things said here about situations I am more familiar with and able to point out the other side of things in a nuanced way. I have no reasons to believe the UK is exceptional in any fundamental way.

You are blaming it all on malice. I regularly feel tempted to that as well with the Swedish social democrats, but then I realize that out of 10 ministers only 1-2 actually has a CV where something, anything they have done or studied would count as experience for their ministry. These fucking people, these career politicians rarely have done ANYTHING, but being in politics. And a quick wiki shows that Priti Patel and Boris are precisely these kinds of people. Boris actually has a string of things he either dropped out of or got fired from. LOL :)

We have popularity contests and the internet and social media just made things even worse. Maybe your country has been late to this game of race to the bottom, but it has quickly become a staple of "free and democratic" systems.

It is impossible for me to pick sides in these shit shows, and rather than blaming the people on top, I blame the people down below who could have read their CVs and made informed judgments. You keep going to the election booths and regardless of side, seem to increasingly think that things are getting worse. You may not like my advice of not voting, but what you the dear voters are doing is the definition of insanity, repeating the same thing, expecting different results.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 05:57:55
Nim:

"I have no reasons to believe the UK is exceptional in any fundamental way."

Well I think that is simply because you are not looking at what has been happening. I also think "someone in opposition" is an odd perspective. A few years ago you were calling me "Maybot" because I defended the previous conservative govt. Before that I was a govt schill for supporting the er, conservative govt before that.

I spent a long time as a civil servant and I am and regularly do give govts the benefits of the doubt as to why they are doing something. It takes a lot for me to ascribe malice aforthought.


Secondly, if you want evidence of this govts bad faith how about:

1. The various reports by the Electoral Commission finding that key figures in this govt repeatedly broke election rules.

2. The fact they attempted to shut down parliament at a key point in a blatantly illegal act, based on a lie, which we know they knew was a lie because they could find nobody willing to testify to it in a court case they would have won if they could simply find someone to testify to the lie.

3. the fact that the now resigned chief stategist admitted that the intent of that prorogation was precisely to get it overturned so he could go into an election campaign saying "remainers are thwarting brexit, lets get it done".

4. The string of proven lies over party gate, any one of which would have been a resigning offence.

5. The string of proven lies about illegal fund raising to decorate the PMs house.

6. The open corruption of some of the key MPs, that the govt then tried to defend and exempt from anti-corruption rules (which they then tried to abolish entirely).

I could go on and on and on - but a cursory inspection shows this current govt to be a massive outlier in terms of norms of behaviour.

Any commentator of British politics that is *not* directly supporting this govt will say so, including a large number of conservative MPs and members.

"You are blaming it all on malice"

Yes, because its been demonstrated on a number of times it is. As I said, their own former chief political advisor to the govt admits so explicitly. We regularly get leaks from inside govt. And we see exactly the kinds of things we would expect to see if it was, like unusually high levels of written instructions.

I admit there is stuff I know that I cannot prove to you - like how while I was working on Brexit I saw how ministers formally direct civil servants to enter into contracts with favoured companies run by political allies in violation of contracts - and how I saw ministers stand up and lie about reports being out of date and from months ago when my team had produced said report and submitted it to the minister a week previously.

This govt in the UK is something very, very different from the norm.

It is a British version of Orbanisation - and there is a lot of verifiable evidence to that effect.

Anyway, even if you don't believe in malice, on this specific issue: they knew it was going to fail because they backed off before on that basis, and we know that they are going ahead against advice put to them because a formal direction was issued to the civil service; which is something that only ever happens when the civil service demands it because the thing is unworkable.


murder
Member
Thu Jun 16 06:02:51

"Understand this Nim, for a certain part of the population, this shit is popular; because they are convinced all migrants are scum."

Do you think we could interest the Tories in a border wall? It's mostly unfinished but that just serves to keep the rabid racists riled up. They can have it for free if they're willing to haul it away.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 16 06:40:09
"Well I think that is simply because you are not looking at what has been happening."

Like I said, I have looked into it, extensively and I know enough about your country and culture to deduce there is nothing exceptional going in your political system.

>>I also think "someone in opposition" is an odd perspective.<<

You are someone in opposition though, by the norms of politics and by your own personal norms.

>>A few years ago you were calling me "Maybot"<<

Hehe, yea Jergul started and I found it funny.

"Secondly, if you want evidence of this govts bad faith how about:"

I would go look for it myself.

"I admit there is stuff I know that I cannot prove to you"

I could take your personal experience at face value and it would change nothing, there is no shortage of personal experience and stories like that.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 07:32:28
murder:

"Do you think we could interest the Tories in a border wall? It's mostly unfinished but that just serves to keep the rabid racists riled up. They can have it for free if they're willing to haul it away."

We have a stretch of fairly rough sea with one of the most active shipping lane down the middle of it and until very recently, we were planning to ram the boats back out of our waters using border force ships.

So I'm guessing a wall is probably a bit low key.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 07:46:49
Nim:

"Like I said, I have looked into it, extensively and I know enough about your country and culture to deduce there is nothing exceptional going in your political system."

I think possibly either you have fallen on your head, or you haven't looked as deeply as you feel you have.

"You are someone in opposition though"
I was in opposition to half the policies I worked on when you might have argued I was in govt.

Then I worked and defended a govt whose policies I opposed because they were advanced with a democratic mandate and in good faith.

I worked for a govt (albeit as a consultant) for 18 months on Brexit - a policy I absolutely opposed.

I have even defended some of those policies because even though I disagree with the premise, they are legitimate policy choices for a democratic govt that has democratic mandate and I think they are reasonable on that basis, even if not a policy I would pursue.

But there is in my mind a stark difference between e.g. the Johnson govt. pursuing hard brexit, vs the Johnson govt. trying to illegally shut down parliament so it can get a hard brexit in contravention to a UK law. For example. Or doing so in order that they can then campaign on the basis that they need to be able to overturn the judges and MPs trying to stop brexit - which the guy in charge of the campaign admits was the whole intent.

I'm sorry that you cannot conceive that such a distinction can exist and be more pertinent than party affiliation; but I think that says more about your understanding of public service and governance.

"I would go look for it myself."
This wording implies you have not because you do not want to :-)


In any case, I would say it is not normal for a govt that has been repeatedly censured by the independent electoral watchdog to pass legislation stripping the independent electoral watchdog of its powers.

It is not normal for a political officials to admit that the main intent of govt policy is to select policy positions specifically and primarily to create political controversy in order to better rile up the base.

It is very not normal to have a PM commit criminal offences in office.

It is not normal for western govts to break treaties in the way the UK is doing.

This is an extreme normalisation of very abnormal behaviours.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 08:12:34
Blair needed to consider resigning when it looked like the police might interview him over claims Labour sold peerages.

Boris did not resign even when he has been fined, lied to parliament about it, and has clearly lost the confidence of enough of his MPs that he no longer has a majority in the house.

Any one of these things is a resigning issue.

On top of this there is the issue of how he has repeatedly overruled the independent commission on lords appointments to make his biggest donors and friends lords - including of course, Lord Lebedev whose dad was/is a member of the KGB and who himself has connections to dodgy Russian money, who gave Boris a bunch of gifts and favours. He's now a member of the legislature, and conveniently cannot be investigated by UK counter intelligence agency as protected by his nominal position in the legislature.

This is all very very not normal.

Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 08:13:30
None of this is subjective by the way - these are easily verifiable facts where - if you are honest - you'd be able to find previous UK govts or other European govts that have accumulated such a track record so quickly.

Normal, this government is not.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jun 16 09:44:21
Seb,


”For example, you compare to China. What consequences has China faced for its ethnic cleansing of Uighurs?”

Just google?

Western countries sanction China over rights abuses
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56487162

U.S. Slaps More Sanctions On China Over Abuse Of Uyghur Muslims
https://www.rferl.org/a/united-states-china-uyghurs-sanctions/31612645.html


”Which other country that's been doing dodgy deportation has faced consequences that you feel Western countries have not?””

Maybe not dodgy deportations (it is mostly if not only Western democracies that do dodgy deportations or who put people in a limbo). But countries that has faced consequences such as sanctions for human rights abuses include Iran, China (HK), Yemen, Venezuela, Russia, etc. Basically ANY country outside of the US-UK-EU-Australia-Israel-Saudi-sphere that is violating human rights, face or risk facing sanctions.




”Actually, the exposure of the Israeli scheme caused it to collapse and the had to stop.”

Instead Israel are leaving asylum seekers in a limbo. Basically, imprisoned with no rights: http://www.timesofisrael.com/offered-little-hope-african-migrants-despair-of-israel-as-a-refuge/



I may ask you, what western (or pro-Western) countries has been sanctioned over its documented and ongoing human rights abuses?

Are there any sanctions on the US, lol? On Australia, the UK, Israel, Saudi?
Paramount
Member
Thu Jun 16 10:00:21
Anyhow, I feel that the UK should be able to ship asylum seekers to any place they deem fit.

Australia recently signed a deal with Nauru to keep the asylum seeker detention centre open indefinitely: http://www...ntion-centre-open-indefinitely

Neither Australia nor the UK will be sanctioned or anything else. All that will happen is that a few people (mostly leftists) will criticize them a bit. There will be some angry tweets, a condemning article in New York Times, and then people will move on.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 16 10:12:14
"I was in opposition to half the policies I worked on when you might have argued I was in govt."
I did not question your ability to perform tasks you disagree with, most of us are doing things at some point or another in our jobs that we disagree with. I was questioning your ability to think clearly and more importantly to be able to summarize opponents’ positions in a manner they would sign off on.
"This wording implies you have not because you do not want to :-)"
You are correct I do not want to, because I understand enough about your country and your place in the world, that I do not need to review decades of UK politics and political evolution just so I can debate you. If I ever decided to do that, I would do my own research.
Let’s assume that Boris is a terrible evil. Why is he still in office? Let me stop you right there from explaining what a shitty political system you have, because I already said it, that allows evil to keep sitting in the highest office. And there you have it, no matter what version of Boris we go with, the dumb or the evil one, they all lead back to the process itself.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 16 10:37:03
It is amazing how hard seb fights to increase the crime rate in his own country.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 10:37:06
Paramount:

So we have a few individuals sanctioned for the most serious breaches on the Uighurs - which include shit like extrajudicial execution, sterilisation etc. Which is way further than the deportation scheme.

And the thing is, when a western govt does get taken to court in an international regime it normally is then taken into account by its own judiciary (if its own judiciary has not already blocked egregious violations of human rights) and backs down.

The UK is certainly facing court action by the ECHR if it keeps up. It may lead to the UK withdrawing from the ECHR which would breach the GFA, which would then lead to a further court case at the ICJ and that would probably result in sanctions from the EU and US.

Which is why for all the bluster, the UK will not do that.

Bluntly, a reason that western countries don't get sanctioned is because when they do go off the rails, normally they do not get far before the rules based order and their own systems of rule of law constrain them - before coercive measures become necessary.

Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 11:01:41
Nim:

"I did not question your ability to perform tasks you disagree with, most of us are doing things at some point or another in our jobs that we disagree with. I was questioning your ability to think clearly and more importantly to be able to summarize opponents’ positions in a manner they would sign off on."

I think it is rather odd you consider this to be different things.

I didn't "perform tasks I disagreed with" - I worked out how to actually implement these policies and make them work (as best they could) and how they could be justified - so as to create the actionable plans, communications, and instructions that trickle down to people who then maybe have to perform tasks to implement a thing they do not agree with.

So of course that means you need to understand what the motivation is, what success looks like from the ministers perspective, the story they want to be able to tell and what their priorities are. So doing that job you speak a lot to the special advisors (SpADs) who are basically the political officials.

And of course you need to then go out there and sell the govt policy to stakeholders who may well be telling you it is wrong and stupid.

Basically, if the policy direction is an inhibition to thinking clearly about a policy and how to make it happen, you can't be a civil servant (at least not at in central ministries).

What we are talking about here is not "opposition to this govts policies" - it is "opposition to this govts behaviour".

As I said, if you cannot see the distinction between opposing a governments policy, and opposing a government breaking the law to pursue a policy; that is more a limitation you have.

For example, I have explained on these boards why I think the EU is wrongheaded in the way it is approaching the Northern Ireland border. Their policy is, in my view, wrong. It is also, however, being pursuing it in good faith. I do not think the Commission is wrong in the *way* they are pursuing it.

However, the way Johnson's govt is approaching it is fundamentally illegitimate and illegal - even if I agree that the intended policy for how the border should operate is broadly right.

You know this because I've discussed it on the boards previously.

How is this not a worked example of the thing you are assuming I am unable to do - differentiate between opposition to policy vs opposition to corrupt behaviour?

"You are correct I do not want to, because I understand enough about your country and your place in the world, that I do not need to review decades of UK politics and political evolution"

This assumes that Johnson is a continuation of the previous govts, the whole argument is that he is not.

You only need to review the last six months to see he isn't normal.

"Why is he still in office?"
Two reaosns:
1. Because the entire system isn't set up to deal with fundamentally dishonest people acting in bad faith - in this way Boris is very exceptional.
2. The conservative party has been hollowed out (remember Boris purged the party before the last general election and preventing them from standing as a conservative candidate - again not very normal), and are increasingly dominated by populists and lickspittles. Even so, 40% of his MPs voted against him. So there is your answer.

"they all lead back to the process itself."
Saying the process is deficient because it does not prevent fundamental shit heads from hijacking it isn't what you are arguing though.

At first you are saying the Johnson govt is nothing out of the orginary and I am misrepresenting it.

Now you are saying that the Johnson govt has exploited a system that is not fit for purpose.

These are two fundamentally different propositions - and while we can discuss the ways in which the system is not fit for purpose* that ignores the fact that it did in fact work well for over a hundred years in its current form, that none of the predecessors behaved like Johnson, and one of the main things Johnson is doing is spending a lot of time actively dismantling institutional checks and balances to make the system even worse, while as his predecessors have strived to tighten the system: Major with the standards in public life (which Johnson has repeatedly tried to abolish or neuter), Blair with the independent advisor to PM on ethics (two of which have resigned over the govts failure to uphold those principles), Blair and Brown with independence of the bank of England (Johnson having overridden the process to install a preferred candidate).

He's the first PM ever to abolish the Electoral Commissions independence.

So yes, he is exceptional, he is different, and it is bizarre to claim that the best explanation for anyone thinking so is that they are opposed to his policies.

I mean his approval rating amongst conservative voters and members over party-gate alone shows you his political supporters think he's a fucking moral vacuum - but they are prepared to tolerate it as long as the conservatives remain in power.

*I think trump shows any system can be fundamentally undermined when hyperpartisanship means the system cannot or will not be allowed to function as intended
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 16 11:05:12
In any case, if we go back to the point in hand - all the evidence shows the govt knew the things was going to fail, and you only need to listen to their speeches to understand why they did it anyway, and some in private even admit they don't believe this is moral.

So you don't need to listen to me at all. It's not speculation.
Paramount
Member
Sat Jun 18 09:27:04
Priti Patel: ‘Scandalous’ grounding of Rwanda flight shows it’s time we quit ECHR

Priti Patel has signalled her desire to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, saying the way the “opaque” court in Strasbourg grounded the UK’s first deportation flight to Rwanda was “scandalous”....

http://www...rwanda-flight-shows-time-quit/


It makes sense to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK is no longer a member of Europe so why should Europe dictate laws to the UK? Lol

Besides, ’human rights’ is just a leftist invention to prevent people from doing what they feel is right and needs to be done.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jun 18 12:09:36
Seb
"I think it is rather odd you consider this to be different things."

Arguing with people on the internet and doing the job that pays your salary (possible also a huge deal on your CV) are two different things. It is bizarre to think otherwise. The incentives are, like, completely different. You are also surrounded by a bunch of other people, who presumably contribute and with whome you cooperate. They certainly can temper and motivate us to press on. And besides you may competently implement technical solutions according to policy (which you disagree with), and *still* misrepresent the policy makers motivations. You just keep it to yourself or convey very muffled criticism and let things rest, pick your battles and play nice, because that CV reference is nice to have after all those years. We don't go to work to grand stand and make a shit show. heh, I mean some do, but not most of us.

>>I worked out how to actually implement these policies and make them<<

That is preforming tasks, doing a job. I assure you what I am saying is not contingent on semantics, but the dynamic of not being in charge and making the strategic/policy decisions. I hope I have not hurt your feelings by diminishing the brainy work you do, but a lot of us are engineers, our task in life is to solve problems and do a bunch of other stuff, like "implementing stuff".

>>Saying the process is deficient because it does not prevent fundamental shit heads from hijacking it isn't what you are arguing though.<<

Not true, been talking about a lot for the last 2 years and I mentioned it in this thread in my second post.

>>At first you are saying the Johnson govt is nothing out of the orginary and I am misrepresenting it.

Now you are saying that the Johnson govt has exploited a system that is not fit for purpose.<<

Not true, I didn't retract one in place of the other. The second item you are paraphrasing, is me telling you that *even* taking you at face value, you come back to the process.

Geez I wonder where I have gotten this idea that you suck at summarizing things and stuff accurately? It is almost as if I have done this before? So, I don't know if this thing plagues you IRL, all I know is that it is a UP constant. On some level, I consider you a low level heuristics of UP. If you say it, then there is a high chance that significant portions of "it" just isn't true.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share