Cable Forum - Starmer’s chronicles

Page 69 of 161

« First

119

Last »

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Starmer’s chronicles (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712992)

OLD BOY

29-04-2025 20:21

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195175)

Rwanda costs us hundreds of millions and didn’t work.

Neither do you.

Rwanda would have stopped the boats, so there would be no ongoing costs.

Have you worked out yet how much it’s costing us, on a continuing basis, to house them in hotels?

......

Russ	29-04-2025 20:22

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195689)

Rwanda would have stopped the boats,

But….it didn’t.

OLD BOY

29-04-2025 20:24

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195691)

But….it didn’t.

No. Too many bleeding heart liberals prevented better progress being made.

It would have worked, but it wasn’t given a chance, was it?

nomadking

29-04-2025 20:30

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195691)

But….it didn’t.

Because of the blocking by the troublemakers. It was never really allowed to start.

Russ	29-04-2025 20:31

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195692)

No. Too many bleeding heart liberals prevented better progress being made.

It would have worked, but it wasn’t given a chance, was it?

How, when the Tories were in charge?

OLD BOY

29-04-2025 20:34

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195696)

How, when the Tories were in charge?

They were in charge, yes, and a General election was looming. They couldn’t go for a final push and then face more legal action because time was not on their side.

You keep saying it wouldn’t have worked, but you never say why.

The human rights lawyers wouldn’t have put so much into opposing it if they thought that.

thenry

29-04-2025 20:39

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Is any migration good migration? I don't mean better off financially. I mean where they come from is bad. The life migrants build is invalid in this question. I'm just questioning migration itself.

Russ	29-04-2025 20:46

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195697)

They were in charge, yes, and a General election was looming.

Looming?

Rwanda was signed in 2022.

The GE was in 2024.

£700m.

---------- Post added at 19:46 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195697)

The human rights lawyers wouldn’t have put so much into opposing it if they thought that.

Maybe these lawyers just thought there was something wrong with sending asylum seekers to a country which wasn't safe (we accepted asylum seekers from there).

OLD BOY

29-04-2025 20:57

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195700)

Looming?

Rwanda was signed in 2022.

The GE was in 2024.

£700m.

Yes it was, and as you well know it faced huge opposition from Labour in the Commons and a barrage of legal cases brought by human rights lawyers that had to be heard first. That is not evidence it wouldn’t have worked, they were just obstacles put in the way that had to be negotiated.

Are you having problems with your memory, Russ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195700)

Maybe these lawyers just thought there was something wrong with sending asylum seekers to a country which wasn't safe (we accepted asylum seekers from there).

They were do-gooders making money for themselves, nothing more. And at great cost to taxpayers.

Russ	29-04-2025 21:03

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195703)

Likely a lot less than yourself.

Maybe the reason there were challenges was that sending them to an unsafe country was the wrong thing to do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195703)

They were do-gooders making money for themselves, nothing more. And at great cost to taxpayers.

You genuinely have no idea how Lawyers work, do you?

TheDaddy

29-04-2025 21:27

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195689)

......

I never credited you with enough intelligence to follow an admin request and you didn't disappoint...

Paul	29-04-2025 21:58

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36195707)

I never credited you with enough intelligence to follow an admin request and you didn't disappoint...

So it seems, it better not happen again. Take note OB.

1andrew1

01-05-2025 13:04

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Better late than never but Reeves must now be on a future re-shuffle list.

Quote:

Rachel Reeves under investigation by standards watchdog over theatre tickets

The Chancellor is understood to have referred herself to the parliamentary commissioner for standards over the late declaration.

Rachel Reeves is under investigation by the parliamentary standards watchdog after a late declaration of free theatre tickets.

The Chancellor is understood to have referred herself to Daniel Greenberg, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, over the late declaration.

The tickets from the National Theatre were accepted and received on December 27, but were not declared on the members’ register of interests until March 27.

According to parliamentary rules, MPs must update any changes to their financial interests within 28 days.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/rachel-...heatre-tickets

papa smurf

01-05-2025 13:22

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36195796)

Better late than never but Reeves must now be on a future re-shuffle list.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/rachel-...heatre-tickets

I thought she had stopped taking freebies

1andrew1

01-05-2025 13:39

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote: