Forum Topic

Does Johnson's Rwandan dead cat mean the end for Chiswick Tories?

It has to be said that Chiswick seems to be blessed with a good set of councillors - hard-working and committed to improving the lives of their constituents. Some do this in the face of pretty sustained abuse on social media.Despite the chances are a good proportion of them will lose their seats in May. It is hard to see any hanging on in the Gunnersbury ward particularly with the Greens standing aside and even St John of Todd might be under threat in Homefields ward proving once and for all that national issues are the primary determinant of who gets elected to the council. A high turnout might even mean that safe Chiswick Riverside is no longer safe.The Conservative councillors were already in a precarious position before the announcement on transportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda due to Partygate, Brexit, cost of living and the general incompetence and duplicity of their leader but this latest policy may tip the balance for many.Areas with lots of immigration tend not to be too concerned about immigrants so Johnson's latest ruse is clearly part of a scorched earth policy in London which is prepared to write off control of flagship boroughs like Wandsworth with Chiswick being collateral damage. I have not encountered one traditional Tory locally in the last few days who think anything other than this policy is an abomination. This is admittedly a poll of people in single figures but the vehemence of their objections is the most notable thing and I have heard the phrase 'final straw' more than once.The question is should our local Conservative councillors be speaking out on the national issues that concern Chiswick residents particularly Johnson's fitness to govern, Brexit, partygate and this latest scandalous policy? They have clearly chosen not to presumably reckoning the more they can get the conversation on local issues the stronger will be their position. This may be the right strategy but it might not be enough to save them and they may regret later not making their true opinions known. It will not be good for Chiswick to lose many of these committed public servants but all their hard work may not be enough to counter the association with a discredited party.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1620d14 Comments

There comes a time where everyone must put party allegiances behind them.  National integrity and national interests must override party allegiances. This latest Conservative policy is the most sickening and disgraceful of them all.  I said on this forum before that we were in the foothills of fascism.  Now it appears that we are rapidly ascending towards the peaks.The policy is so sickening as to be unbelievable.  On that basis, it would be comforting to think that this is nothing more than yet another “dead cat” strategy.  I read that there are threats of resignations in the Home Office if the policy is implemented (not least, because the policy is almost certainly illegal), but that Patel has exercised a “Ministerial Direction” (for only the second time in 30 years) to force through the policy.  But things we thought could never happen (such as a Prime Minister actively and repeatedly lying to Parliament, but remaining in office) are happening before our eyes.And the reasons being given for the policy are obviously nonsense – to “deter people traffickers” – in a gossamer thin effort to try to give some ethical justification to the policy.  This policy is obviously not designed to reduce people trafficking, and It will do nothing of the kind – and more likely precisely the opposite.  How  does punishing victims of crime deter the criminals?  This is perverse.  And is there any reason to believe that the evils of people trafficking and exploitation (of all kinds) will be any less in Rwanda?  Experience strongly indicates otherwise.And before we hear the retort “so what would you do”?  The answer is simple (and something we have already done, albeit half-heartedly and cack-handedly with regard to Ukrainian refugees):  Create legal routes to claim asylum.  Set up a processing office in Calais (and possibly elsewhere).  Process the applications quickly. Admit those who are entitled to asylum.  This would substantially reduce the market in people trafficking, probably to the point where it is no longer viable. How much would this cost?  Probably substantially less than the £120m (just for starters) for the Patel plan.  But more importantly, it is the right and ethical thing to do. UK is 14th in Europe for asylum applications.  72% of UK asylum applications are granted.  Which means that more than two out of three people entering the UK do so on good grounds, and are ultimately allowed to stay.  Are we really going to send those people who are entitled to asylum in the UK to start a “new life” in Rwanda?People (of every political allegence and none) really do have to nail their colours to the mast on this one.

T P Howell ● 1620d