Westminster Politics

Supreme court rules Rwanda asylum policy is illegal.

From the Guardian...

Supreme court concludes Rwanda policy unlawful because of risks to asylum seekers being sent there
Reed says, given this evidence, the court of appeal concluded that there were good grounds for thinking asylum seekers going to Rwanda were at risk.

He says the supreme court is unanimously of the view that the court of appeal was right.

Great news
 
Spare a thought... it's shattered the dreams of this vile cnut.

th
 
Great news

Some people will blame the judges and the UNHCR and ignorantly say that the UK should withdraw the the UN Convention.
But as the Judges clearly pointed out, that would not achieve anything. Because the UK has numerous binding agreements with a large number of countries over and above the UNHCR.
 
Sunak falsely trying to claim credit for the drop in inflation however it's overshadowed by this ruling. :lol:

Pretty much all of the reason for the drop in inflation was due to the Ofgem reduction in energy prices for which the government has no part in.
 
Some people will blame the judges and the UNHCR and ignorantly say that the UK should withdraw the the UN Convention.
But as the Judges clearly pointed out, that would not achieve anything. Because the UK has numerous binding agreements with a large number of countries over and above the UNHCR.

The Tories have been obsessed with the undermining of commitments to Human Rights over the last decade. They don't care about the facts they just want to strip our progress away on it.

Obviously Raab was the most obsessed one but even the supposedly more moderate ones like Theresa May will lie to undermine public support of other people's rights.
 
Sunak falsely trying to claim credit for the drop in inflation however it's overshadowed by this ruling. :lol:
It's pretty annoying that he seems to be getting away with that claim/target without serious challenge. Think some (not many) may look at the inflation target as thinking he knows how to manage the economy.
 
He drops it and he sparks a full blown civil war against the frothing-at-the-mouth right wing nuts in the party. Its precisely what Cruella hopes he does.
But it's illegal? He can hardly carry on, can he? Surely the route of 'we tried but the dumb home sec shat the bed' approach?
 
Sunak can't put all the blame on Braverman because he fully supported the scheme too. It was their flagship policy.

If he had one fecking atom of integrity he'd call a GE.
 
good lord, starmer is a bit crap at PMQs isnt he. just doesnt have any oratory skills. he shouldve demolished suank. when sunak brings up corbyn / hamas, that should be the cue for starmer to bring any number of tory scandals...but he just cant go off script...
 
good lord, starmer is a bit crap at PMQs isnt he. just doesnt have any oratory skills. he shouldve demolished suank. when sunak brings up corbyn / hamas, that should be the cue for starmer to bring any number of tory scandals...but he just cant go off script...
Don't know, that came off to me as Sunak using Hamas and Israel to play politics, so not the worse to not stoop down to that level.
 
good lord, starmer is a bit crap at PMQs isnt he. just doesnt have any oratory skills. he shouldve demolished suank. when sunak brings up corbyn / hamas, that should be the cue for starmer to bring any number of tory scandals...but he just cant go off script...

Starmer asks the questions and Sunak is meant to answer them. Starmer doesn't get a right of reply to each one. Sunak is so desperate he has to bring up Corbyn who isn't even a Labour Party member.
 
Starmer asks the questions and Sunak is meant to answer them. Starmer doesn't get a right of reply to each one. Sunak is so desperate he has to bring up Corbyn who isn't even a Labour Party member.
us normal intelligent people know and understand that, and it follows that we wouldnt vote tory. he should be using rhetoric to destroy the tories. there will never be a more opportune moment.
 
Thought he got plenty of digs in myself. He usually does at PMQs.
problem is you think he (starmer) has done ok, even though its a low bar, and then Flynn gets up (whether you agree with his politics, his rhetorical flourishes are far better) and makes starmer look pretty poor every singe week.
 
Sunak can't put all the blame on Braverman because he fully supported the scheme too. It was their flagship policy.

If he had one fecking atom of integrity he'd call a GE.
That's like those posters who say any football manager should admit it's not working out and resign and 'do the right thing by the club'.
 
Starmer asks the questions and Sunak is meant to answer them. Starmer doesn't get a right of reply to each one. Sunak is so desperate he has to bring up Corbyn who isn't even a Labour Party member.

Well, he is a labour party member.

Just not a labour party MP.
 
Starmer asks the questions and Sunak is meant to answer them. Starmer doesn't get a right of reply to each one. Sunak is so desperate he has to bring up Corbyn who isn't even a Labour Party member.

This is the dumbest thing about the PMQs. So many of them would fluff under the pressure of having to be quick witted.
 
Sunak might have been better off waiting a couple of days until after the courts decision before sacking Braverman. He could have tried to shift the blame for it to her.

My worry is that there's going to be a huge campaign by the tories to to step out of the ECHR now and they'll use this as an excuse (although not true) to do so. They're a completely vile party at the moment.
 
good lord, starmer is a bit crap at PMQs isnt he. just doesnt have any oratory skills. he shouldve demolished suank. when sunak brings up corbyn / hamas, that should be the cue for starmer to bring any number of tory scandals...but he just cant go off script...

Yes indeed.
Someone like the always impressive Yvette Cooper, with her superior intellect would destroy Sunak.
And in my view would have made a significantly better leader.