Yet more Tory sleaze….

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
 
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
Watched as much as I could stomach of Johnson and his "apology" it's fecking pitiful those around him actually trying to defend him....
Then there's this lol....no wonder I don't watch it anymore !
The Speaker tells Keir Starmer to withdraw his description of Boris Johnson as “dishonest” as it is “not approapriate”.
 
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
I think Theresa May is more decent than most Tory MP's. She knows there's a world of difference between having a tough policy on immigration and the utter batsh*ttery of flying folk half way across the world to fill in the forms. She's also a pragmatist - she knows there is about the same chance of this happening as the bridge to Ireland.
I don't..... May oversaw the destruction of Windrush records, the hostile environment for immigration and was the only person to veto automatic rights for EU nationals in the UK.
When you start thinking May is the voice of reason 🙄
 

Craig the cyclist

Über Member
Disability News Service really should know better than to use that sort of guilty by association schizzle.

Reeves' eldest child is 10 so I doubt the fact of who she's married to has 'emerged' any time recently...

Although it is ok to claim the Chancellor is guilty by association when it comes to his spouse :wacko:
 

Craig the cyclist

Über Member
That's not guilt by association. The charge against Sunak (as Chancellor) is that he was not open and honest regarding his family's finances, which he is required to be under the ministerial code.

As you already know.

Oh yeah....

"A Treasury spokesperson said: “The chancellor provided a full list of all relevant interests when he first became a minister in 2018, as required by the ministerial code. The independent adviser on ministers’ interests has confirmed that they are completely satisfied with the steps the chancellor has taken to meet the requirements of the code.”"
 

icowden

Legendary Member
Oh yeah....

"A Treasury spokesperson said: “The chancellor provided a full list of all relevant interests when he first became a minister in 2018, as required by the ministerial code. The independent adviser on ministers’ interests has confirmed that they are completely satisfied with the steps the chancellor has taken to meet the requirements of the code.”"
His declarations of interest are also thought to be inadequate. For example, he forgot to mention his wife's huge financial stake (700m) in Infosys which is planning to take advantage of Rishi's plans to make the UK a global hub for cryptocurrency. Boris endorsed Infosys without mentioning his Chancellors interest in the company.

it's also worth pointing out that the Chancellor directly controls policy on taxation including whether or not non-doms pay tax. He has raised taxes for everyone else, but not non-doms (I wonder why?). Thus he has a direct conflict of interest with his own wife's finances. Then there is his "blind trust" - he will know exactly what is in it and exactly how to shape policy to make sure it thrives.

It's almost like his "unlevelling tax" was designed to protect his own interests and those of his friends and relations...

Thus Dishi Rishi is now looking like Fishi Rishi...
 
I don't..... May oversaw the destruction of Windrush records, the hostile environment for immigration and was the only person to veto automatic rights for EU nationals in the UK.
When you start thinking May is the voice of reason 🙄

No, she didn't. The decision to destroy the landing cards was made under a Labour government.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-who-destroyed-the-windrush-landing-cards

It might irk you but most of the general public want a government that is tough on illegal immigration, so unless the Left can offer a viable alternative I would choose T May's approach over B Johnson's any day.

Of course, if Labour had got behind May's 'Brexit in name only' Johnson probably wouldn't even be PM and we wouldn't even be discussing the ridiculousness of outsourcing immigration processing to a distant African republic....
 
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
No, she didn't. The decision to destroy the landing cards was made under a Labour government.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-who-destroyed-the-windrush-landing-cards

It might irk you but most of the general public want a government that is tough on illegal immigration, so unless the Left can offer a viable alternative I would choose T May's approach over B Johnson's any day.

Of course, if Labour had got behind May's 'Brexit in name only' Johnson probably wouldn't even be PM and we wouldn't even be discussing the ridiculousness of outsourcing immigration processing to a distant African republic....
Yvette Cooper was Shadow Home
Secretary when Labour MPs were whipped to abstain on Theresa May's Immigration Bill that led to the Windrush scandal.
Only six Labour MPs voted against it....
Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and Skinner were 4 of them.
Don't muddle New Labour with the left 🙄
 

icowden

Legendary Member
No, she didn't. The decision to destroy the landing cards was made under a Labour government.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-who-destroyed-the-windrush-landing-cards
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.

The decision to destroy the cars was just the Home Office following records keeping policy. There would have been little impact, but the Conservative Government under Theresa May brought in very hostile legislation under the Immigration Act 2014 which then meant that the cards suddenly became invaluable.

The number of people for whom a landing card would materially alter their status now is very low – but not zero.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that the destruction of the landing cards would not be a significant problem for the Windrush generation if the “hostile environment” policy hadn’t been introduced.

So whilst it may have started under a labour government in terms of the "decision", it was the Conservatives who really built it into a problem by actually destroying the cards and peoples lives. The party of "law and order" strikes again. As to whether Theresa May can be considered a voice of reason, she was a weak Prime Minister. At least now she seems to be standing up for some principles.
 
Top Bottom