Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:58 am
£240m spent on Rwanda, asylum seekers sent: 0.
Outrageous.
Outrageous.
Worth it for the votes it will secure.
That’s what it was always about.
Independent Leyton Orient Forum
The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
Tory Watch
Page 278 of 290
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:02 am
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:16 am
300m, keep up!Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:58 am £240m spent on Rwanda, asylum seekers sent: 0.
Outrageous.
Actually, there have been hundreds of civil servants and MPs flown out to Rwanda but not one illegal immigrant.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:37 am
Even that's backfiring on them. The recently revised net immigration figures are a real problem for the Tories amongst their grassroots and target voters. And they can see through the Rwanda plan. This is looking like it will now cost them votes.Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:02 am Worth it for the votes it will secure.
That’s what it was always about.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:49 am
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:18 am
Jesus, they're not serious people are they?
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:27 am
Disagree, 'they' can't see through the Rwanda plan, they think it's the way forward.Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:37 amEven that's backfiring on them. The recently revised net immigration figures are a real problem for the Tories amongst their grassroots and target voters. And they can see through the Rwanda plan. This is looking like it will now cost them votes.Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:02 am Worth it for the votes it will secure.
That’s what it was always about.
It's inevitable downfall will be blamed on leftie lawyers, the wokerati, European Courts, liberal do-gooders, Remoaners and, of course, Labour.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:30 am
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 10:16 am
I could have worded it better - They can see through the Tories, and no longer believe that they are a legitimate party of low/negative net immigration. Which they are not.Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:27 amDisagree, 'they' can't see through the Rwanda plan, they think it's the way forward.Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:37 amEven that's backfiring on them. The recently revised net immigration figures are a real problem for the Tories amongst their grassroots and target voters. And they can see through the Rwanda plan. This is looking like it will now cost them votes.Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:02 am Worth it for the votes it will secure.
That’s what it was always about.
It's inevitable downfall will be blamed on leftie lawyers, the wokerati, European Courts, liberal do-gooders, Remoaners and, of course, Labour.
The Tories are keeping a wary eye on the Reform UK vote share, as this has the potential to cost them votes. This threat, and the fact that they are totally burnt out, is why they will judge they have little option but to double-down on culture-war rhetoric.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2023 1:15 pm
Our senior representative at COP28 comes home days before the end of the conference. I mean, it's not as if this is the most important part when deals might be brokered. Of course, supporting Rishi in the Rwanda vote is obviously much more important than the future of the World.
Been said so many times before, but how could any sane decent person ever vote for the Tories?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... isis-point
Been said so many times before, but how could any sane decent person ever vote for the Tories?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... isis-point
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 am
Sunak's latest punt in hoping to win electoral brownie points for the Tories is to send the Air Force into bombing attacks on the Houthis to 'stop them blocking trade shipping through the Suez canal'. It was said to be of such crucial importance and urgency that there was no alerting parliament.
Quite an incredible action IMO when the region is already explosive with multiple warring and destruction.
Was he trying to go by theThatcher playbook in which her Falklands war elevated her from negative polling into winning the next GE?
And just how obscene would it be to spend £millions of funds in this way when they are desperately needed here for basic human and social essentials?
Quite an incredible action IMO when the region is already explosive with multiple warring and destruction.
Was he trying to go by theThatcher playbook in which her Falklands war elevated her from negative polling into winning the next GE?
And just how obscene would it be to spend £millions of funds in this way when they are desperately needed here for basic human and social essentials?
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:34 am
You're crazy.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:42 am
You realise that Doing A War has been a pretty standard ploy from f*cked leaders the world over for aeons?
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:44 am
Or do you mean he's crazy for thinking that the billions being spent on missiles and bombs would have been spent on basic human and social essentials here? Agreed, if so. Of course they wouldn't.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:50 am
Its a conspiracy theory. He's posting as if trying to prevent terrorists from attacking civilian shipping is unreasonable.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:56 am
Starmer agrees to this policy too, especially that Parliament did not have to be consulted and recalled.E10EU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:29 am Sunak's latest punt in hoping to win electoral brownie points for the Tories is to send the Air Force into bombing attacks on the Houthis to 'stop them blocking trade shipping through the Suez canal'. It was said to be of such crucial importance and urgency that there was no alerting parliament.
Quite an incredible action IMO when the region is already explosive with multiple warring and destruction.
Was he trying to go by theThatcher playbook in which her Falklands war elevated her from negative polling into winning the next GE?
And just how obscene would it be to spend £millions of funds in this way when they are desperately needed here for basic human and social essentials?
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:15 am
Anyone seriously suggesting that the UK government wants to be poking this hornet's nest really doesn't understand what they're talking about.
Even the US administration is reluctant, and only committed to airstrikes after navy vessels were targeted by Houthis. They know full well it has the potential to make things worse (and will be used against Biden by Trump in the next election campaign).
"Doing a war" for electoral advantage only possibly worked for Thatcher in 1982. Since then it has very much ceased to be a thing, especially following the catastrophic failures of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even the US administration is reluctant, and only committed to airstrikes after navy vessels were targeted by Houthis. They know full well it has the potential to make things worse (and will be used against Biden by Trump in the next election campaign).
"Doing a war" for electoral advantage only possibly worked for Thatcher in 1982. Since then it has very much ceased to be a thing, especially following the catastrophic failures of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:40 am
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:17 am
So, they are just incompetent then?Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:15 am Anyone seriously suggesting that the UK government wants to be poking this hornet's nest really doesn't understand what they're talking about.
Even the US administration is reluctant, and only committed to airstrikes after navy vessels were targeted by Houthis. They know full well it has the potential to make things worse (and will be used against Biden by Trump in the next election campaign).
"Doing a war" for electoral advantage only possibly worked for Thatcher in 1982. Since then it has very much ceased to be a thing, especially following the catastrophic failures of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:23 am
Possibly. Sunak certainly is out of his depth.Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:17 amSo, they are just incompetent then?Dunners wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:15 am Anyone seriously suggesting that the UK government wants to be poking this hornet's nest really doesn't understand what they're talking about.
Even the US administration is reluctant, and only committed to airstrikes after navy vessels were targeted by Houthis. They know full well it has the potential to make things worse (and will be used against Biden by Trump in the next election campaign).
"Doing a war" for electoral advantage only possibly worked for Thatcher in 1982. Since then it has very much ceased to be a thing, especially following the catastrophic failures of Iraq and Afghanistan.
But when it comes to action in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden there are just no good options right now.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:26 am
The idea that limited air strikes against a Yemeni militia group 99% of the UK population won't have heard of, in an enormously complicated geopolitical situation where there is zero prospect of us putting boots on the ground, is part of some elaborate electoral strategy...
We are just doing what we always do, which is tack ourselves on to an American decision in order to retain some appearance of international relevance.
We are just doing what we always do, which is tack ourselves on to an American decision in order to retain some appearance of international relevance.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:37 am
Throwing out a few missiles and bombs is hardly elaborate.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:39 am
Well those who try appeasement have always failed miserably. What do want us to do , roll over and take what these terrorists throw at us? At least Starmer has had to grow a pair and back the Government to the anguish of ‘terrorist friendly’ left wingersMistadobalina wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:26 am The idea that limited air strikes against a Yemeni militia group 99% of the UK population won't have heard of, in an enormously complicated geopolitical situation where there is zero prospect of us putting boots on the ground, is part of some elaborate electoral strategy...
We are just doing what we always do, which is tack ourselves on to an American decision in order to retain some appearance of international relevance.
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:41 am
^Daily Express bot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:39 amWell those who try appeasement have always failed miserably. What do want us to do , roll over and take what these terrorists throw at us? At least Starmer has had to grow a pair and back the Government to the anguish of ‘terrorist friendly’ left wingersMistadobalina wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:26 am The idea that limited air strikes against a Yemeni militia group 99% of the UK population won't have heard of, in an enormously complicated geopolitical situation where there is zero prospect of us putting boots on the ground, is part of some elaborate electoral strategy...
We are just doing what we always do, which is tack ourselves on to an American decision in order to retain some appearance of international relevance.
And you're telling me it doesn't work?
Re: Tory Watch
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:55 pm
No it is a sign of weakness, it generally does not work historically.Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:41 am^Daily Express bot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:39 amWell those who try appeasement have always failed miserably. What do want us to do , roll over and take what these terrorists throw at us? At least Starmer has had to grow a pair and back the Government to the anguish of ‘terrorist friendly’ left wingersMistadobalina wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:26 am The idea that limited air strikes against a Yemeni militia group 99% of the UK population won't have heard of, in an enormously complicated geopolitical situation where there is zero prospect of us putting boots on the ground, is part of some elaborate electoral strategy...
We are just doing what we always do, which is tack ourselves on to an American decision in order to retain some appearance of international relevance.
And you're telling me it doesn't work?