And the tories have picked as replacement candidate for his old seat … his partner.
Supposedly because he’d threatened to stand as an independent if she was not the chosen candidate. It must be so hard for the Tories to decide between losing badly while maintaining their integrity. Or probably still losing, maybe slightly less badly, without any integrity.
OB
I thought Bone was famous for constantly referring to “Mrs Bone” in the Commons - is this she, or is this a replacement?
I like to keep on top of the details.
Separated in 2016, apparently.
Objection. Assumes they have any integrity left to maintain in the first place.
Sustained.
Well well well…
Bone shafted?
ETA: reading the article, maybe more like Bone passive-aggressively mildly disrespected.
That does sound very British.
You could just go with “Boned”.
Why did I hear Frankie Boyle’s voice while I read that sentence in Riemann’s post…
More chaos:
I don’t recall if it’s been addressed before; if so, apologies; but: Why Rwanda ? How have the Tories chosen that particular country as a dumping ground?
Did someone in the Tory party remember that there was a movie called “Hotel Rwanda” and think it was a travel documentary?
They won the ‘Who Will Give Us the Most in Kickbacks’ bidding process? Who knows…
Braverman has links to the government over there. Not saying they’re dodgy links, but she failed to declare them, which is usually a sign that something smells off.
Because Rwanda was willing to enter into the deal with them? The list of countries willing to do this would not be long, and most of them would have much less credibility than Rwanda.
According to Wikipedia, Rwanda had previously made similar deals with Denmark and Israel, both of which proposals fell into similar legal and political difficulties.
You would thought that might have made Boris Johnson and Priti Patel think twice before proposing the idea.
Oh, wait a minute…
Of course, it’s all highly unlikely to happen. Yes, the government’s bill has got through the Commons (so much for all those putative rebels), but the Lords could easily hold it up until the election is on us.
I think there’s a couple of reasons it’s Rwanda.
-
It’s sufficiently genocidey and offensive that it is trolling its enemies.
-
For that reason it is unlikely to succeed. They want it to fail. The tories don’t want to succeed in immigration. They want to be seen to fail to blame it on their enemies. This was also the point of Brexit, which backfired by overpromising (and not so much under delivering, but making up all sorts of shit because they thought it doomed).
-
Some Tories have money in there. This is often the driving force of most tory policies. There is no doubt the substandard accomodation and dodgy boat companies are throwing money at the tories to get more cream.
-
The Rwandas don’t care and will take anyone.
What isn’t being made clear, due to our wonderful press, is that the applicants are being deported. They will never be UK citizens. If they succeed in their claims, they get to stay in Rwanda, a country where asylum applications are currently being granted from in the UK. If they fail they’ll be expelled from Rwanda.
This is not processing, this is deportation to another country.