How is the Tory Government Doing?

And fwiw, this is the sort of bloke Jenrick is...

On 14 January 2020, Jenrick approved a £1 billion luxury housing development of 1,500 homes on Westferry Road, Isle of Dogs, proposed by Richard Desmond, a Conservative Party donor and owner of Northern & Shell. A Government planning inspector had advised against permitting the scheme, as it would not deliver enough affordable housing and as the height of the tower would be detrimental to the character of the area.[48]

Jenrick approved the scheme on 14 January knowing that an approval by that date would enable Desmond to avoid having to pay a council-imposed infrastructure levy of between £30 and £50 million, which could have been used for funding schools and health clinics.[49][50] Tower Hamlets London Borough Council then pursued a judicial review against Jenrick’s decision in the High Court, arguing that it had shown bias towards Desmond. It was also reported that Jenrick had helped Desmond to save an additional £106m by allowing affordable housing at 21%, instead of enforcing the local and London-wide planning policy requirement of 35%.[51][52] This could have resulted in a total discount (and subsequent loss of revenue to the Exchequer) of approximately £150 million.[52]

In May 2020, Jenrick did not contest the judicial review, conceding that his sign-off of the scheme was "unlawful by reason of apparent bias". He also confirmed that his approval had deliberately been issued before the new CIL policy could be adopted. This meant that Jenrick was able to avoid disclosing correspondence relating to the application in open court. His planning permission was quashed by the High Court, which ordered that the matter was to be decided by a different minister.[53]

Jenrick maintained that although the decision had been "unlawful by reason of apparent bias", there had been no "actual bias".[54] Desmond, whose company had donated to the Conservative Party in 2017,[49] made a further personal donation to the party shortly after the approval was given. Andrew Wood, the leader of the Conservative group on Tower Hamlets Council, resigned because of his concerns over the property deal.[55] The planning decision will now[when?] be re-determined by a different Government minister. In conceding the move did show "apparent bias", Jenrick effectively blocked the judicial review, which originally prevented documents between his department and the developer from being made public.[53] Mayor of Tower Hamlets John Biggs said: "We may never know what emails and memos the secretary of state received before making his decision and what influence they had, but his reluctance to disclose them speaks volumes."[citation needed]

In June 2020, Desmond told The Sunday Times he had lobbied Jenrick at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner held at the Savoy in November. He said he had showed Jenrick "three or four minutes" of a promotional video for the Westferry Printworks development on his mobile phone, adding "he got the gist".[56] The interview was followed by a Labour Party opposition day motion debate in the House of Commons on 24 June, which forced Jenrick into releasing all "relevant" documents surrounding his dealings with Desmond, including private text messages between him and the developer that show discussion of the then live planning application beginning the night of the fundraising dinner.[57]

One of the emails revealed that Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials were being pressured by Jenrick to work out how to overrule the Government's own planning inspector so he could approve the plans before any increase in the Tower Hamlets council community infrastructure levy (CIL), which Desmond would have had to pay.[51] That Jenrick did not disclose to his department his potential conflict of interest until a month after his dinner raised concern.[58] The release of the documents led to calls for Jenrick's resignation for his use of a public office for political favours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jenrick#Unlawful_approval_of_Westferry_housing_development

Hahaha - I thought this was funny from Labour's Chris Bryant...

Sir Chris Bryant for Labour complained in the Commons that the home secretary had "twice refused to answer the question of whether the immigration minister has resigned, but he has, hasn't he?".

He continued: "And can he just tell us, has he resigned because he thinks that this policy doesn't stand an earthly chance of working, or has he resigned because he's embarrassed that a British government would actually put ministers above the law?

"In other words, has he resigned because he thinks this policy is crazy or because he doesn't think it's crazy enough?"

It gets even funnier!

Rishi's reply to Jenrick's resignation...

On the Rwanda bill, Sunak says it's "the toughest piece of illegal migration legislation ever put forward by a UK government", and warns: "If we were to oust the courts entirely, we would collapse the entire scheme."

"The Rwandan government have been clear that they would not accept the UK basing this scheme on legislation that could be considered in breach of our international law obligations," he says.

To which shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, says Jenrick's departure during the Commons announcement of the new Rwanda draft legislation is "a sign of the total chaos in the Tory party" and "complete collapse of Rishi Sunak’s leadership".

She adds: "It shows how incredibly weak the prime minister is that he is telling his backbenchers that the only reason he hasn’t gone further is because the Rwandan government told him not to break international law."

I saw an article in the DM the other day on the Tories stating they are reducing migration by upping the minimum working salary to £34,000 I think it was.

This simply penalises normal people like ourselves where when the Mrs settled in the UK, it took at the time 3 years and had to jump through hoops and at a cost of approx £5,500 (this has increased since).

Once the Mrs had got her British citizenship, the government decided to up the minimum salary someone could earn to be able to bring someone from abroad such as a spouse or girlfriend to £21,000 and if they had dependents then it would go up a couple of grand more per dependent along with having to contribute at the time £800 for the use of the NHS and also extending the process to 5 years.

They are now talking about upping it to £34k obviously you can use a combination of savings and yearly salary but I feel that this is incredibly unfair as if someone who works in a supermarket or a cleaner for example on the minimum wage are unable to bring a loved one across and are denied happiness.

If they want to make sure that the people who come here are genuine then more stringent checks are needed and not to penalise the applicant in a way like this all to try and make it look like the government are cracking down on the migration when it is the migrants/refugees coming through Europe to the UK willy nilly.

The Tories can fuck off for me.

karlypants wrote:The Tories can fuck off for me.

I think the majority of voters think that too Karly.

The following is an analysis of whether the Rwanda Bill could work (and the stupidity of some of the parts of it!)

It is worth a read -

Can the new Rwanda bill work and what could stop it?

Expert lawyers who have been involved in the Rwanda case - or supported the challenge to the policy - have described new legislation as potentially setting up a politically explosive fight with both the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.

In last month's Supreme Court ruling, five justices unanimously ruled that the country was not safe - and they listed the detailed evidence about how its asylum system was deeply flawed.

The key element of the government's package tries to deal with this part of the defeat by asking Parliament to declare Rwanda to be "conclusively" safe and simultaneously banning British judges from ever saying it is not.

That is aimed at preventing the courts from once again considering documented evidence about injustices in Rwanda's asylum system. Taken to a hypothetical extreme, if Rwanda exploded with civil war like in 1994 (not something currently likely to happen), British law would still state the country was a safe place to send people.

The plan then orders British judges and courts to ignore the sections of the Human Rights Act that set out how they should interpret safeguards set out in the European Convention of Human Rights. That includes the right not to be tortured, or the right to a fair hearing before a court.

It also prevents judges from considering other international laws - most importantly the Refugee Convention and the United Nations' ban on torture.

This is quite a move to pull off legally and politically on the world stage. On the one hand, the UK freely entered into these laws because it wanted to set a global example for others to follow. On the other, the government has designed a law, say critics, that allows it to pick and choose when it adheres to such global rules - while demanding that Rwanda sticks to the letter all the time.

One highly-respected legal thinker, Professor Mark Elliott of Cambridge University, has already blogged that this is "an astounding level of hypocrisy".

Meanwhile, the Bill reveals an astounding level of hypocrisy in the sense that it is premised on a policy that presupposes that Rwanda will honour its obligations in international law while demonstrating that the UK is prepared to breach its own obligations. It follows that the Rwanda Bill, and the policy to which it seeks to give effect, is ultimately a smoke-and-mirrors exercise that promises something which, as a matter of legal fact, it simply cannot deliver.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2023/12/06/the-rwanda-bill-and-its-constitutional-implications/

Finally, it says our courts must ignore any other British law that stands in the way of finding the country to be safe - this is important because the Supreme Court said such laws exist.

So where does this leave the plan?

The front page of the bill gives it away. Every piece of new legislation must carry a statement as to whether the plan is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

This bill comes without that assurance - and that means government lawyers have warned ministers it is more likely than not to fall apart under sustained legal challenges.

So if the bill is passed, many experts are gearing up for a new and profoundly messy court battle - if not lots of them. Some of those battles might even start in Edinburgh if the plan runs roughshod over some part of Scots law that Downing Street has not thought of. If that sounds like a plot twist, it happened to Boris Johnson when he was roundly defeated over illegally closing down Parliament amid the Brexit crisis.

At worst, it could lead to an unprecedented constitutional stand-off between Parliament and judges.

The Supreme Court cannot strike down primary legislation - but it has the power to make a "Declaration of Incompatibility". This is a rare judgment that says an Act of Parliament should be rethought because it is incompatible with the basic European Convention of Human Rights safeguards embedded in British law.

Two such rights that come to mind in relation to the Rwanda plan are the right not to be subject to inhuman treatment and the right to have a fair hearing of your case before you are put onto a plane to equatorial Africa.

If the Supreme Court makes a Declaration of Incompatibility, in theory a government should then ask Parliament to amend the offending law. But it does not have to do so - hence the potential stand-off.

So if ministers pressed ahead with flights, it is a racing certainty that claimants would then try to take their case, as would still be their right under the law, to the European Court of Human Rights.

The court in Strasbourg would then have to consider whether it wants to block the plan - and flights - while it considers the case.

If it did that, the bill includes a measure that says ministers can ignore such an order and send a plane skywards anyway.

But two massive obstacles stand in the way of the plan becoming reality.

The first is politics. They need to get this through Parliament - and there is no certainty the House of Lords will comply.

Some observers are already wondering why Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, and Victoria Prentice, the Attorney General, have stood by the bill when they both have constitutional roles in upholding international laws that may soon be ignored. A lot of votes in the Commons may rest on their shoulders.

Secondly, just supposing it did become law, some of the best legal minds in the country have fought the government over Rwanda. The plan could become so mired in challenges in court that it never gets to a final judgment before the General Election clock runs out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67643900

Just who the Tories think will do all the jobs in hospitality, social care and the NHS when they put up the wage thresholds to come in to the country is beyond me. The NHS won't survive without staff from abroad.

Christ, just how many completely delusional and tunnel vision posters do we have on here? I thought Sluffy was the most brainwashed but he’s being challenged for that role now. Shall we have a competition for who can come up with the most deluded contribution?

To be quite honest 63, like I have said in the past I have voted the Tories in originally so I am not an arse kisser of any.

I simply want what is fair for all in my eyes like most people do.

The majority of people are now fed up with the bullshit and stealth taxes that are happening with this current government.

You are the one who is deluded with them saying this and that to improve the country. It is simply a lie to keep your vote at the next next election.

Funny how they won't call a general election now as they would flop big time right now due to all their failures etc.

Roll on December next year. I can't wait!

Never voted Tory and never will. I grew up in the Thatcher era and saw what she did to this country.

Whitesince63 wrote:Christ, just how many completely delusional and tunnel vision posters do we have on here? I thought Sluffy was the most brainwashed but he’s being challenged for that role now. Shall we have a competition for who can come up with the most deluded contribution?

Why should we bother? You'd walk it.

Whitesince63 wrote:Christ, just how many completely delusional and tunnel vision posters do we have on here? I thought Sluffy was the most brainwashed but he’s being challenged for that role now. Shall we have a competition for who can come up with the most deluded contribution?

Maybe I am delusional and tunnel visioned but I'm still waiting for you to name any reputable experts who are fossil fuel global warming deniers, any reputable economists that champion Trickledown economics theory and any rational Conservative politician that believes that the Rwanda Bill will succeed???

And you really believe I'M the one who has been brainwashed!!!

You remind me of that old joke...

Doctors now have perfected how to do brain transplants from any person who ever lived.

The richest man in the world thought if he bought the most expensive brain there was, he could use it to get even richer, so he did his research and found that Einstein had been the cleverest man who had ever lived and was determined to buy his brain.

He went to the Brain Shop and asked for Einstein's brain and said he had enough money to buy this most expensive brain there ever was, but the shopkeeper told him it wasn't, that would be W63's brain!

How can that possibly said the richest man in the world, because Einstein was a genius whilst W63 was fossil fuel global warming denier, voted for Truss and her mini budget and believes all the Muslims are terrorists???

Exactly for those reasons, sir, replied the shopkeeper, Einstein is a genius but W63's brain has clearly never ever been used!!!

63, I think you need to broaden your horizons more and take your Mrs/family on holiday to the far east for example.

You could have a lovely holiday at a Muslim country such as Indonesia with Bali being a popular destination or to Malaysia for example.

There is far more to this world than just Spain for example.

Norpig wrote:Just who the Tories think will do all the jobs in hospitality, social care and the NHS when they put up the wage thresholds to come in to the country is beyond me. The NHS won't survive without staff from abroad.

Tbh the Government need to sort this out and start paying the employees at the bottom of the NHS chain.

Even Aldi have come out stating that they are paying their staff a minimum of £12 per hour now!

karlypants wrote:63, I think you need to broaden your horizons more and take your Mrs/family on holiday to the far east for example.

You could have a lovely holiday at a Muslim country such as Indonesia with Bali being a popular destination or to Malaysia for example.

There is far more to this world than just Spain for example.

Good idea KP. This global warming thing is getting to him. Just don't go to Jamaica, 63, the beaches are jam packed if this message from my nephew is anything to go by.

Norpig wrote:Never voted Tory and never will. I grew up in the Thatcher era and saw what she did to this country.

Pig, you obviously didn’t see what she did and if you couldn’t see that the Blair years were entirely funded by what Maggie did by putting a rocket in our economy yet they still managed to leave the country bankrupt again after they left office, as ALL Labour governments have done then there’s not much hope for you.

I can’t though use the current or recent government as much of a counter because since Maggie they’ve all been shite and in fairness not really Conservative at all. The only reason I remain a member is to try to elicit change from within not because I have any confidence in what’s there now. That’s so sad because when you look at Labour they’re even worse so I’m afraid there’s little hope for any of us in the near future.

karlypants wrote:

Tbh the Government need to sort this out and start paying the employees at the bottom of the NHS chain.

Even Aldi have come out stating that they are paying their staff a minimum of £12 per hour now!

Spot on Karly, that’s exactly what’s needed but it’s not going to happen whilst we keep importing cheap Labour from abroad. Look at truck drivers as an example. They used to be well paid until the influx of Polish and Lithuanian drivers through Blair’s mad relaxation of immigration rules. 

The improvements in the Polish economy and of course Brexit saw most return home. For a while we struggled to get drivers at all and what happened? Wages and conditions went up and the same will happen in every other sector if we can stop this insane rush to bring in cheap labour. It’s tough at the start, I accept that but if we’re ever going to grow the economy and increase productivity it just has to happen.

Interesting story if true!!!

Another country going through the same political extremism that the western world has got its knickers in a twist over...

Emmanuel Macron's government in crisis after migration bill defeat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67683314

Basically the the electorate wants action taken over immigration.  The right-wing politicians demand a return to nationalism, France for the French (Make America Great Again type thing), the government has produced a Bill which goes someway towards that but in doing so it impacts negatively on civil liberties and those in the centre like me (not you W63 as you seem to believe you are!) value our freedoms rather than the potential abuse of them once Pandora's Box is opened

The world in general is heading towards dark times and no one really seems to care...


Pandora's box
According to Hesiod, when Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus, the king of the gods, took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Pandora opened a jar left in her care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world.[4] Though she hastened to close the container, only one thing was left behind – usually translated as Hope, though it could also have the pessimistic meaning of "deceptive expectation".[5]

From this story has grown the idiom "to open a Pandora's box", meaning to do or start something that will cause many unforeseen problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_box

Sluffy wrote:Another country going through the same political extremism that the western world has got its knickers in a twist over...

Emmanuel Macron's government in crisis after migration bill defeat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67683314

Basically the the electorate wants action taken over immigration.  The right-wing politicians demand a return to nationalism, France for the French (Make America Great Again type thing), the government has produced a Bill which goes someway towards that but in doing so it impacts negatively on civil liberties and those in the centre like me (not you W63 as you seem to believe you are!) value our freedoms rather than the potential abuse of them once Pandora's Box is opened

The world in general is heading towards dark times and no one really seems to care...


Pandora's box
According to Hesiod, when Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus, the king of the gods, took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Pandora opened a jar left in her care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world.[4] Though she hastened to close the container, only one thing was left behind – usually translated as Hope, though it could also have the pessimistic meaning of "deceptive expectation".[5]

From this story has grown the idiom "to open a Pandora's box", meaning to do or start something that will cause many unforeseen problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_box

Look Sluffy, you can keep denying the increasing number of ordinary people in Western democracies rising up against politicians filling their countries with immigrants who have no respect for their cultures, values, religions or laws and labelling them extreme right wing, populists or some other crackpot insult but like it or not eventually even you will realise it’s true.

Similarly, on your other pet subject, I see Cop 28 has voted to remove the “promise” to meet carbon deadlines so again, just maybe, it’s you that’s out of step. Net zero? Net madness.