Tory Leadership Race

[Wisbech Eagle]

What a sad thought from a sad old man.
Just to be PC you will be happy for an influx of foreigners to dilute the population from white to brown. And just because us and our kids won’t be here it’s ok.
If reincarnation is real I hope you come back and get plonked in the middle of a ghetto in some s*** hole being created as we speak.

The only thing that makes me sad is to witness the way the right continue to believe they can stop progress. King Canute as a role model isn’t for me.

There’s nothing PC involved. Simply reality. Change happens. What’s unusual for us won’t be for our great grandchildren. On the most basic level what does the colour of our skin matter? It’s how we think and behave which does. Working to protect our culture and economy is what we need to concentrate on.

 

[beak]

Thanks to Tony Blair !

Apropos "Reform and building the case for it", it would require getting 45 other countries to agree to any such changes and this could prove virtually impossible.
I believe that in the Leadership election all the candidates agreed the ECHR was not working in Britain's interest but Jenrick was the only one who gallivanted down the path of leaving.

Tomorrow I shall be tuning into a Conservative Party TV leadership hustings at 7pm LIVE on GB News.

For avoidance of doubt I am on the ERG wing of the party as opposed to "One Nation" or "Tory Reform Group" !!!!

The Americans have said that we would be punished for leaving, Nancy Pelosi at the time made no bones concerning their ire.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

The Americans have said that we would be punished for leaving, Nancy Pelosi at the time made no bones concerning their ire.

We don't have to leave it. Just ignore it.
It is not binding.

Someone has to take a lead, because illegal immigration will eventually cripple Europe. I suspect that the elites don't actually want to stop it. They like the chaos.

 

[Badger11]

The issue over the EHCR for me is quite simply sovereignty.

It was created by smart ass western politicians as a stick to beat the Soviet Union who just ignored it and instead it has become a tool for activists to override our courts and parliament.

Why do we need an unelected and unaccountable supranational court ?

Parliament and our own courts should be supreme, the US has never joined the world court for that reason.

It's time for a reset. If MPs want to allow foreign terrorists and sex offenders to claim asylum then they should say that and let the public decide at election time. This is very much like Brexit, MPS hiding behind another body.

 

[silvertop]

Thanks to Tony Blair !

Apropos "Reform and building the case for it", it would require getting 45 other countries to agree to any such changes and this could prove virtually impossible.
I believe that in the Leadership election all the candidates agreed the ECHR was not working in Britain's interest but Jenrick was the only one who gallivanted down the path of leaving.

Tomorrow I shall be tuning into a Conservative Party TV leadership hustings at 7pm LIVE on GB News.

For avoidance of doubt I am on the ERG wing of the party as opposed to "One Nation" or "Tory Reform Group" !!!!

Things could go one of two ways for your party.

A mass defection to Reform of those from your wing of the party.

Or a swing back to the centre to get elected.

The party is currently choosing between one of two on your side presumably with the view to avoid the first scenario but hope to cling on to the other factions.

That party will survive. But in opposition.

And we will not leave the ECHR. If it is not within the wit of a government to put in place sensible and cost effective policies to protect our borders without having to press that nuclear button, then that government does not deserve to govern. Jenrick will shout and groan about it in opposition but not in a million years would he put it into policy in the outside chance this dysfunctional party got back into power.

As an aside, we largely drafted the ECHR in a process started under Churchill (I think?).

 

[beak]

The issue over the EHCR for me is quite simply sovereignty.

It was created by smart ass western politicians as a stick to beat the Soviet Union who just ignored it and instead it has become a tool for activists to override our courts and parliament.

Why do we need an unelected and unaccountable supranational court ?

Parliament and our own courts should be supreme, the US has never joined the world court for that reason.

It's time for a reset. If MPs want to allow foreign terrorists and sex offenders to claim asylum then they should say that and let the public decide at election time. This is very much like Brexit, MPS hiding behind another body.

I don't particulary agree with your post but it is factual,well thought out and unusually consructive for a post on here.

 

[silvertop]

We don't have to leave it. Just ignore it.
It is not binding.

Someone has to take a lead, because illegal immigration will eventually cripple Europe. I suspect that the elites don't actually want to stop it. They like the chaos.

No, they like the ready supply of cheap willing labour into a rapidly ageing and/or non-working market.

I am not saying that is my position, but if you were they would that not be yours?

 

[silvertop]

The issue over the EHCR for me is quite simply sovereignty.

It was created by smart ass western politicians as a stick to beat the Soviet Union who just ignored it and instead it has become a tool for activists to override our courts and parliament.

Why do we need an unelected and unaccountable supranational court ?

Parliament and our own courts should be supreme, the US has never joined the world court for that reason.

It's time for a reset. If MPs want to allow foreign terrorists and sex offenders to claim asylum then they should say that and let the public decide at election time. This is very much like Brexit, MPS hiding behind another body.

You were doing so well till that line...

 

[Willo]

Why I am supporting Robert Jenrick

His vision is the right one for both the Party and the nation

letters.jacobreesmogg.com

The erudite Jacob and I are 'Birds on the same twig' 👍 👍

 

[Badger11]

You were doing so well till that line...

Fair enough, but I was thinking about Diane Abbott and several other Labour MPs who berated the government over the (failed) deportation flight of 30 criminals back to Jamaica. This was a group of serious criminals, murders, sex offenders and the like but the idiot activists stop the flight. Most were able to stay and some committed serious crimes post this failed deportation.

MPs should explain to their voters why they think serious criminals should not be deported and not hide behind the ERHC.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

No, they like the ready supply of cheap willing labour into a rapidly ageing and/or non-working market.

I am not saying that is my position, but if you were they would that not be yours?

Yes, but they have legal immigration for that.

How many illegals end up working in jobs that benefit big business? They are more likely to be washing cars or selling drugs.

I think that chaos suits our real rulers. It promotes fear. It causes division. It creates a need for protection.
All very Orwellian.

Maybe our overlords are colluding with the drug lords. Would you be surprised?

 

[Rudi Hedman]

The only thing that makes me sad is to witness the way the right continue to believe they can stop progress. King Canute as a role model isn’t for me.

There’s nothing PC involved. Simply reality. Change happens. What’s unusual for us won’t be for our great grandchildren. On the most basic level what does the colour of our skin matter? It’s how we think and behave which does. Working to protect our culture and economy is what we need to concentrate on.

The opposite is happening, and becoming a minority accelerates it and makes it more so after the usual idiots have started it off. You don’t really care anyway.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

We don't have to leave it. Just ignore it.
It is not binding.

Someone has to take a lead, because illegal immigration will eventually cripple Europe. I suspect that the elites don't actually want to stop it. They like the chaos.

As long as operation scatter doesn’t get too close, likewise none of those 220,000 violent crimes by migrants.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Things could go one of two ways for your party.

A mass defection to Reform of those from your wing of the party.

Or a swing back to the centre to get elected.

The party is currently choosing between one of two on your side presumably with the view to avoid the first scenario but hope to cling on to the other factions.

That party will survive. But in opposition.

And we will not leave the ECHR. If it is not within the wit of a government to put in place sensible and cost effective policies to protect our borders without having to press that nuclear button, then that government does not deserve to govern. Jenrick will shout and groan about it in opposition but not in a million years would he put it into policy in the outside chance this dysfunctional party got back into power.

As an aside, we largely drafted the ECHR in a process started under Churchill (I think?).

Churchill wanted an EU of sorts but to run alongside the British empire, he didn't want to actually join it.

The Churchill family (very very establishment) are very EU now and Churchill often gets represented as an EU fan but the actual detail differs from the presentation. That time period had such different realities to modern Europe that us using Churchill is a little difficult. The man believed in the supremacy of parliament and most definitely empire (even though he unwittingly destroyed it)

 

[Phil’s Barber]

How could I? Or anyone else for that matter.

I suspect that’s the cost of housing the asylum seekers. Which, as I tried to tell you, is not the subject. The subject is the number of illegal immigrants. Quantifying their cost is impossible.

Don’t talk such rubbish! You may be trying to appear dumb or you actually are dumb. Either way don’t suggest for one moment that these boat loads of males coming over are anything but illegal immigrants. There are lawful ways for genuine asylum seekers to enter the UK and lodge their claim. Furthermore they are travelling through Germany, France, Spain and Italy…all of which are safe countries that they should be lodging their asylum claims in (if that were the case).

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Don’t talk such rubbish! You may be trying to appear dumb or you actually are dumb. Either way don’t suggest for one moment that these boat loads of males coming over are anything but illegal immigrants. There are lawful ways for genuine asylum seekers to enter the UK and lodge their claim. Furthermore they are travelling through Germany, France, Spain and Italy…all of which are safe countries that they should be lodging their asylum claims in (if that were the case).

I’ll ignore the ignorant insult, because you are either evading the point or still don’t understand it.

What you say about the illegal small boat migrants, whilst not entirely accurate, is largely a statement of fact which isn’t disputed.

It’s not though the subject. You made a claim about the cost of undocumented migrants in the UK being £3.2 billion which I asked you to justify. Not about those arriving in small boats and claiming asylum. The illegals established here mostly arrived legally but became undocumented by overstaying. Most work in the black economy. They cannot draw benefits.

So kindly justify your claim.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Some information on the costs of illegal immigration.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-05-07/debates/64997110-88BF-4157-8177-D9687A25841B/IllegalImmigrationCosts

 

[silvertop]

Fair enough, but I was thinking about Diane Abbott and several other Labour MPs who berated the government over the (failed) deportation flight of 30 criminals back to Jamaica. This was a group of serious criminals, murders, sex offenders and the like but the idiot activists stop the flight. Most were able to stay and some committed serious crimes post this failed deportation.

MPs should explain to their voters why they think serious criminals should not be deported and not hide behind the ERHC.

The ECHR does not prevent such people from being deported.. I suspect every country In the EU and us have policies in place to enable deportation of criminals. What the Convention prescribes is a procedure to ensure due process is properly followed to sift genuine asylum seekers from the rest. And to legally characterise those deemed persona non grata.

And there's the rub. Without an efficient system and resources we are stuck with criminals and that is government not the law.

I know we have someone who worked for Border Control but I also know someone who worked Heathrow. A whole plain from Jamaica came in. Could have been Albania Vietnam or Nigeria. The boss waived the whole lot through without a check as they did not have the manpower.

Removing the ECHR is a populist gymic that will have zero impact on the issue. It is akin to voting Leave to address the problem. All that did was check literate and critical European workers with no impact at all on non EU migrants.

 

[Stirlingsays]

'You're going to see the west and its peoples shrink in world population. all of them will be predominantly folks from the third world. and the idea they're going to preserve western culture and civilization is really putting hope over experience' (Pat Buchanan)

He should have said 'most' of them will be from the third world and that most of them won't preserve western culture and civilization..but essentially old Pat was right.

But the boomers didn't listen and voted for people providing reassuring lies instead.

 

[Badger11]

The ECHR does not prevent such people from being deported.. I suspect every country In the EU and us have policies in place to enable deportation of criminals. What the Convention prescribes is a procedure to ensure due process is properly followed to sift genuine asylum seekers from the rest. And to legally characterise those deemed persona non grata.

And there's the rub. Without an efficient system and resources we are stuck with criminals and that is government not the law.

I know we have someone who worked for Border Control but I also know someone who worked Heathrow. A whole plain from Jamaica came in. Could have been Albania Vietnam or Nigeria. The boss waived the whole lot through without a check as they did not have the manpower.

Removing the ECHR is a populist gymic that will have zero impact on the issue. It is akin to voting Leave to address the problem. All that did was check literate and critical European workers with no impact at all on non EU migrants.

The right to family life is often cited by judges as a reason for not deporting the most despicable of criminals. This was Tony and Cherie Blair's doing when they enshrined it in UK law. Judges now have to pay attention to the ECHR.

I would prefer a British bill of rights and responsibilities.