Social care plans? Levelling up? Corruption? PAH! Just say "Migrants" and "Peppa Pig" and all will be forgiven, says the Prime Minister - to himself
An aspect of the corruption scandal that I noted last week in ‘Gravy Train’ was the showdown between Boris Johnson and the 1922 Committee.
According to one Conservative insider that was present during the meeting, it was noted that “90% questions [were] about small boats.”
The idea, of course, that’s quite patently obvious, is that where the Conservatives might rekindle their support is on the matter of immigration and ‘taking back control of our borders’ which was literally a 2019 manifesto pledge.
The problem for the Conservatives, naturally, is that their approach to immigration [which this isn’t - in a lot of cases] is hindered by failing to make the distinction and be honest with their voters on the matter of what makes an immigrant and immigrant, and what makes a refugee a refugee.
Or essentially, ‘dog whistling’.
Their problem
The problem for the Conservatives is compounded by their own language in appealing to those who cannot make the necessary [and important distinctions]. Page 20 of the Conservative Manifesto states, for instance:
(a)
“Our new [Australian-style points] system gives us real control over who is coming in and out.”
Page 23, meanwhile, states:
(b)
“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”
The immediate conflict that exists here is that the Conservatives cannot do A with B when they are legally obligated to do B, those of whom B applies are different from A.
And if the majority of those who are in the “small boats” are B, there is nothing they can do to appease those who assumed that when they voted the Conservatives in 2019, they would get A as an all-encompassing policy.
Also on Page 20 of the Conservative manifesto, it notes:
(C)
“The vote to leave the EU was, among other things, a vote to take back control of our borders.”
There exists a fundamental irony here in the sense that since leaving the EU, we have actually [probably knowingly] made our borders less secure, and more open for migrant crossings.
Previously, and as a member of the EU, if it was found that an individual had passed through ‘safe’ European countries, the UK could ask those countries to ‘take back’ migrants arriving in the UK under the Dublin Regulation.
Further proof of migrants’ origin and which ‘safe countries’ they passed through was established via the UK’s access to the Eurodac fingerprint database, which we no longer have - due to leaving the EU.
No agreement was reached on asylum policy between the UK and EU after December 2020.
As a result, and at the end of the transition period when Boris Johnson brought forth “tidings of great joy” for Christmas 2020, actually, the Dublin Regulation, EURODAC and, “all other elements of the CEAS ceased to apply to the UK.”
In short, we haven’t been able to “take back control of our borders” because of our “vote to leave the EU.”
Oh dear.
“Bonehead” [9, I think]
Compounding matters even further for the Conservatives is the issue of having a “moron” in charge of the Home Office.
It’s language I regret using on this page - however, it’s not my language. It’s allegedly the language of the Home Secretary’s own staff that have taken to calling her, among other things, “an idiot” and, as noted, “a moron” making “suggestions” that are “erratic and outlandish.”
This came after Patel branded the Home Office “not fit for purpose” and essentially served as a living, breathing Spiderman meme between herself and the civil service on the matter of who is to blame for the government’s handling of the migrant ‘crisis’.
As noted in my previous article relating to the tragic murder of Sir David Amess, this page attempts to remain mindful in the use of language that may otherwise be deemed offensive and/or reactionary.
One particular example I highlighted in my previous article was how language used by Priti Patel was alleged to have inspired a knife attack at a London law firm perpetuated by right-wing extremist Cavan Medlock
Patel doesn’t seem to keen to have learned from this [fortunately-not-fatal] error by - not only doubling down on the language but tripling down on the language by being quoted as stating regarding the legal system:
“It's a complete merry-go-round and it has been exploited - a whole sort of professional legal services industry has based itself on rights of appeal, going to the courts day-in day-out at the expense of the taxpayers through legal aid.”
“There's a whole industry that thinks it's right to defend these individuals that cause the most appalling crimes against British citizens, devastating their lives, blighting communities - and that is completely wrong.”
These comments came in the aftermath of the Liverpool terror attacks. Following this, and sadly inevitable, the comments led to human rights barrister Adam Wagner being threatened on Twitter.
About that language, Home Secretary.
Party Piece
Immigration, of course, was one of the Conservative Party pieces of 2019 - their way of essentially attempting to claw back votes lost to UKIP through the Cameron years when the Conservatives just weren't right wing enough - hence David Cameron calling the referendum in 2016 [and losing - then resigning - then chucking his hat into the lobbying arena and getting into serious trouble - in the first place]
So naturally, it makes complete sense for opportunist Nigel Farage to vault onto the scene when the Conservatives have crossed the Rubicon into the pit of decay and despair! [or drop in polls, less dramatically].
And so if they fall apart on immigration, what little is there for the Conservatives to cling to for survival?
At this point, nobody views their levelling up pledges with any degree of seriousness, and especially after yesterday’s vote where - on social care - they essentially voted in favour of forcing some of the poorest homeowners in the country having to sell their homes to pay for care, which [going back to the illustrious Conservative Party manifesto from 2019 once again] we discover is yet another broken manifesto pledge. [p. 12]
Labour proposed banning private health care firms from being appointed to NHS decision-making boards or local integrated care boards, too. The government? Well, they only went and voted against it, didn’t they?
On social care plans, however, it’s no wonder almost 100 Conservatives rebelled against it- and when they didn’t vote in favour, they simply stone-walled their own government through abstention. That’s how much they hate your guts at this point, Prime Minister.
It seems all is lost for the beleaguered Tories, and with Johnson's jaw-dropping speech at the CBI - which left even his own staff dumbfounded and aghast - it’s doubtful ‘that things can only get better’ for them, but obviously, all will be forgiven by the drop of a reference to Peppa Pig. Right? Right!?
And, by God, Johnson says, and presumably into a mirror, if it doesn’t work for business leaders from the CBI in Tyneside, it’ll be sure to work for Tory donors at a dinner party where karaoke with Liz Truss is being auctioned off for £22,000 or you can have a game of cricket with the Chancellor for £35,000!
Meanwhile, everybody else thinks you’ve gone mad - and finally, you’ve slipped beyond the pale into a paranoid hyper-reality where the most mentally competent entity serving as your spirit guide is none other than a drunken Richard Nixon muttering something about Communists.
Naturally, they can try and distract society - as they attempt to with immigration - and occasionally drop a story or two about refugees being sent to the Falkland Islands, but even then it’s doubtful people will fall for it as they did before when they “dropped” the story of sending refugees to Ascension Island - which was also nonsense.
Although they might actually fall for it. As noted before in ‘Nothing Land’, some people like that, I gather.
But there’s an inherent risk in the Tories reeling off yet another story about refugees and people in “small boats” - in so much as - as noted above - it seems they’ve screwed that one up, too.
Create your profile
Only paid subscribers can comment on this post
Check your email
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.