• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

UK Politics V - Have We Got News For You

(To be fair, I don’t think the interviewer is doing a very good job either. A less antagonistic framing may have increased the odds of getting an answer…)
I think after 14 years in power, in an election season / year, to face a hostile press given the many and varied failures of the party itself is to be expected. Maybe not ideal, or however people want to tone police it, but perfectly expectable, and something that politicians should factor into their calculus.

Heck, even characters in The Thick Of It knew when their time was up. But maybe the competence displayed in said satire was a cut above what our current Tories are capable of :D
 
(To be fair, I don’t think the interviewer is doing a very good job either. A less antagonistic framing may have increased the odds of getting an answer…)
I think one of the biggest problems today is that the news media does too much reading government statements and too little asking the difficult questions. If they could not get their word out without answering the difficult questions about what they say they would get away with much less.
 
I think after 14 years in power, in an election season / year, to face a hostile press given the many and varied failures of the party itself is to be expected. Maybe not ideal, or however people want to tone police it, but perfectly expectable, and something that politicians should factor into their calculus.

Heck, even characters in The Thick Of It knew when their time was up. But maybe the competence displayed in said satire was a cut above what our current Tories are capable of :D

I think one of the biggest problems today is that the news media does too much reading government statements and too little asking the difficult questions. If they could not get their word out without answering the difficult questions about what they say they would get away with much less.
I don’t even think that’s a particularly difficult question. I agree with you both in part, but not fully, I think it requires goodwill from both the interviewer and the interviewee to make progress.

What I do hope is that we might be reaching peak ‘media training’ where politicians cannot genuinely talk on any topic. Would you ever get a UK politician making a speech like this?

 
I don’t even think that’s a particularly difficult question. I agree with you both in part, but not fully, I think it requires goodwill from both the interviewer and the interviewee to make progress.

What I do hope is that we might be reaching peak ‘media training’ where politicians cannot genuinely talk on any topic. Would you ever get a UK politician making a speech like this?

In the end of the day it is up to us, we choose what media we consume and who we vote for. If we accept that behaviour then we will get it.
 
I don’t even think that’s a particularly difficult question. I agree with you both in part, but not fully, I think it requires goodwill from both the interviewer and the interviewee to make progress.
I think when it comes to politicians, there's far too little goodwill to actually engage with their constituents concerns, and thus my default stance is that they should be made examples of when attempting to treat interviews as a PR exercise.

Beyond that, too much of the media is deferential or even actively complicit in pushing party lines. I'm not opposed to others therefore being hostile to balance out the odds, at least until we have a healthier political landscape!
 
So a few are predicting the destruction of tge Tories who seem to be on 20-25%.

That's happened to both our big parties here they bounce back after 6ish years.

Tories are defeating themselves but assuming they get crushed is it internet hyperbole or more long term problem?
 
Heck, even characters in The Thick Of It knew when their time was up. But maybe the competence displayed in said satire was a cut above what our current Tories are capable of :D
"I really thought I could have been Prime Minister"
"You did?"
"Of course, didn't you?"

I know Malcolm Tucker is sort of the star of the show, but I love Peter Mannion. Someone who is confident in his own abilities and is utterly done with spin.
(But who is also capable of extreme pettiness. "Screw you! You're not getting in my car tonight!"
 
Last edited:
Tory candidate who is running against a person of colour:

 
UN agency warns of new Rwanda abuses evidence

The United Nations’ refugee agency has warned judges it may have new evidence from 2024 that Rwanda has endangered asylum seekers, despite Parliament passing a law declaring the country is safe.

In a highly significant intervention in the continuing legal battle over the policy, the UNHCR told the High Court on Monday that it is investigating new allegations of abuses.

Those allegations include individuals potentially being sent to countries where they could be tortured, despite Rishi Sunak arguing, during the same period, that Rwanda was a safe partner for the UK.

A judge has granted the UN agency permission to prepare a dossier before a flight of asylum seekers can leave the UK.

The court’s decision is a blow to the government because the agency’s intervention was a deciding factor in the Supreme Court finding that the original Rwanda plan was unlawful.

Home Secretary James Cleverly’s lawyers have told the court that no one will be sent to Rwanda before 24 July. Labour has pledged to scrap the policy if it wins the general election on 4 July.

Despite the uncertainty over the future of the scheme, at least a dozen major challenges are now before the courts - most from individual asylum seekers who want to know their future.

During the first Rwanda legal battle in 2022 and 2023, the UN’s evidence was critical to judging whether the country could be considered a safe and fair place to send asylum seekers.

It showed the British courts evidence of Rwanda subjecting refugees to “refoulement” - the practice of illegally returning an asylum seeker to a country they had fled from, despite knowing they may be tortured.

During Monday’s hearing, lawyers for the agency said that it wanted time to prepare and present new evidence on what had happened since it compiled its original evidence in 2022.

Lawrence Bottinick, a UN official, told the court in a witness statement that the agency had not seen any improvements.

“In particular, UNHCR is aware of repeated incidents of refoulement from Rwanda and denial of access to the asylum procedure to asylum seekers in Rwanda post-dating my earlier statements,” he said.

“These incidents have occurred in a variety of contexts and continued into 2024.”

Mr Bottinick said the incidents continued to undermine the “fairness, reliability and coherence” of Rwanda’s process for assessing refugees - but that the UN’s team needed more time to gather and fact-check these incidents before they could be presented in court.

The agency’s lawyers also told the court that its staff had met British officials in Kigali, Rwanda’s capital, on 7 December last year, and told them they knew of at least seven cases of refoulement during 2023.

That same day, Rishi Sunak unveiled his new Rwanda plan, which bars judges from considering whether the country is unsafe.

Lawyers for Mr Cleverly told the High Court that there was no legal reason why any of the questions potentially being raised by the UNHCR should stop a flight on 24 July.

But Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled the agency’s evidence could be important and gave it permission to gather as many facts as possible to present to the court by 28 June.

The judge gave the home secretary until the day after the general election to tell the court what he thinks about the UN’s evidence.
 
How long before Sunak's manifesto includes a commitment to legally disregard the UN?
 
How long before Sunak's manifesto includes a commitment to legally disregard the UN?
I certainly did not study it in detail, but did not the thing they pushed through just before dismissing parliament just about do that?
 
I thought that they'd ordered judges to ignore European rulings on the matter. It's still all bonkers-level, near-fascist stuff.
 
Rish!'s closest parliamentary aide and tory candidate for Montgomeryshire & Glyndwr placed a £100 bet on a July election just three days before the prime minister named the date. Not only i this probably illegal but he is only set to win £500, how can that be worth the bad publicity? They are just showing what a shower they are.
 
So what will the "labour" policy for immigrants be? Isn't their leadership also xenophobic enough?

They plan to create a "Border Security Force", whatever that is?


 
Rish!'s closest parliamentary aide and tory candidate for Montgomeryshire & Glyndwr placed a £100 bet on a July election just three days before the prime minister named the date. Not only i this probably illegal but he is only set to win £500, how can that be worth the bad publicity? They are just showing what a shower they are.

I would not necessarily assume it is illegal.

In the UK gambling contracts are traditionally regarded as gentlemen's agreements,
and therefore not legally binding, so if UK law applies, the bookeeper may decide he
was privy to inside information, not a gentleman and simply decline to pay him.

But presumably they have decided that the Gambling Commission should earn its keep.
 
I would not necessarily assume it is illegal.

In the UK gambling contracts are traditionally regarded as gentlemen's agreements,
and therefore not legally binding, so if UK law applies, the bookeeper may decide he
was privy to inside information, not a gentleman and simply decline to pay him.

But presumably they have decided that the Gambling Commission should earn its keep.
Quick google:

Gambling Act 2005

Section 334: Repeal of provisions preventing enforcement

828.This section repeals all statutory provisions which provide that gambling contracts are unenforceable. The repeals will not apply retrospectively, so any gambling contract made, or right arising from an agreement made, before this section comes into force will not be enforceable.

However it is not obvious to me he is cheating, it may depend on the contract. I am sure he will not do time, and any financial penalties he may face will be trivial compared to the embarrassment. Electoral calculus is giving him a 59% chance of winning the seat, New Statesman 33%, this could easily lose him his job.
 
Last edited:
Nevertheless a gambling contract is not legally enforceable if the
parties agree that it is a gentleman, and not legally binding, contract.

I know not what was agreed in this instance.

And breeching a contract is generally not illegal.

If the bookeeper regards the bet as legally binding but the gambler has an unfair advantage, it is
understandable they (having lost) would approach the Gambling Commission to have the bet voided.

I understand that it would be necessary to demonstrate fraud to establish illegality.
 
Top Bottom