Thread 39 Sunak - Government by Gaslight

[DuncinToffee]

previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5016708-thread-38-sunak-soooo-square-one-is-an-option-then?page=40&reply=133647875

There a village near us with speed bumps but the massive pot holes between them slow the traffic much more.

One major thoroughfare in my town keeps having signs with 'Pothole Road' pop up. The council's response: 'We will send someone to remove the signs.'

Oh good lord - I hope David Gauke has lost his marbles here because the amount of bilge these three would produce together would be off the charts.

They were dancing at the Conservative Party conference together."

Former Conservative Cabinet Minister David Gauke tells @TomSwarbrick1 he believes that Boris Johnson, Priti Patel, and Nigel Farage will front the Tory Party in the future.

x.com/lbc/status/1769792132603396465?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

David Gauke is a sane and clever man.

He’s got to be joking, who does he think would vote for that?

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1769848994644050193

Government have overturned all 10 of the Lords amendments of the Rwanda Bill.

As expected, they still have a majority.

Back to the HoL it goes

Hopefully the Lords will take their time. The perfect opportunity for a bit of filibustering.

Starting with the amendment that said it should be compliant with the rule of law!

No. I think he has a point! Johnson and Patel are properly chummy. And the idea of a righter wing Conservative Party after the election is plausible. What is interesting is that he discounts people like Gove, Badenoch, Shapps, Braverman who have all been part of Sunak's cabinet. Are they tainted by association? An interesting thought

Since the Bill wasn't in the party manifesto I expect some Lords will not be too worried about sending back to the Commons a further set of amendments.

Rats instead of ferrets this time?

Just to get our day off to an entertaining start, this is what I’ve just seen in The Telegraph. How did she manage to keep a straight face?

Laura Trott, the Tory MP, said of the speech: “Rachel Reeves may be promising a ‘new chapter’, but it will be the same old Labour. No plan – just more borrowing and more taxes – exactly how the last Labour government wrecked our economy.”

Labour didn't wreck the economy!🤬🤬🤬. God, how much more of this do we have to put up with!

Bless. Trott doesn't know which party Liz Truss was a member of when she was Prime Minister.

Nor explain how Labour have wrecked our eco on,y the last 14 years from the opposition bench

I think we all know the answer to that. But Jeremy Corbyn

British Dental Asscociation on the Government's plan

“Rishi Sunak’s 3-point plan for dentistry. Gin. Pliers. And a bit of brute force..”

I’m not convinced Sunak is a human being, reckon he is a robot someone has knocked up in a basement for a bet.

Ouch.

Lord Dubs(Labour): It's bizarre that we're sending people from here to Rwanda, but we're taking people from Rwanda & giving them refugee status here

Lord Robathan(Tory): "That's b/c they're opposing the govt.. but it's a perfectly safe country if you don't oppose the govt.."

https://x.com/Haggis_UK/status/1770011351953367388?s=20

Sounds quite similar to the speech Rishi made outside No 10 a couple of weeks ago 🤔 No wonder they're confused!

That sounds scarily like something the Tories would aspire to for the UK.

Yup. “Shut up, sit down and do as you’re told”. Bloody wonderful.

The Lords won't actually block the bill though for the constitutional reasons that 1 they can't use the Parliament Act now, they CD only do that btw 2nd and 3rd reading and 2 they are unelected. If they managed to stop it reaching the statute books the rightwing press could rightly say an unelected body had gone against the will of our elected representatives.

However it's still unclear if flights will leave as I cannot see how the bill without amendments satisfied the issues raised in the SC. So as soon as they try to get people on to planes there will be injunctions and we'll be back to square one. The SC saying the legislation is incompatible with our obligations under international law which it presumably will be is not equivalent to the Lords trying to delay it as it's literally their job to adjudicate on the legality of government actions (even if the press call them enemies of the people when they do this).

It sounds like there are practical issues with Rwanda wanting to delay too. I would be amazed if anyone ever goes to Rwanda.